Easements Act, 1882
Section 13- Section 13 of the Easement Act is applicable only when properties owned jointly are partitioned amongst co-sharers, which is not admittedly the scenario in the instant case. It is also revealed by the transcript of evidence that the plaintiff himself stated during cross examination that he has an alternative pathway to the north-east side of his house, as such, he is not a land-locked property owner. The High Court Division has unwarrantedly transgressed into the domain of evidence to open new door on evidence analysis, which, as a revisional Court it cannot ordinarily do, unless analyses of evidence by the Courts of fact are palpably perverse. In this case the trial Court in evaluating the depositions of PWs 1, 2 and 3, who deposed to prove the existence of a pathway. The trial Court has given cogent reasons for not believing the PWs. We find merit in the appeal, which is accordingly allowed, without however, any order as to costs. The impugned judgement is set aside. ... Anowara =VS= Abdul Rab Hawlader. [7 LM (AD) 53]
Section 15- One should bring a suit within 2(two) years of interruption of his enjoyment (distinct from actual user) of easement right when the cause of action arises The Appellate Division observed that the High Court Division took the view that since the suit was not filed within two years from 1990, i.e. when the wall was erected by the defendants, the suit is barred. The Appellate Division is of view the finding of the High Court Division is quite erroneous. The requirement of the law is that in establishing the right of easement it has to be shown that the right was openly enjoyed as an easement, and as of right, without interruption for 20 years and the period of 20 years shall be taken to be a period ending with the interruption of the enjoyment of the easement right when the cause of action arises and the suit is to be instituted within 2 years from the date when the cause of action arises. Shamsul Huq Molla VS Shunil Chandra Biswas, [1 LM (AD) 373]
Section 60- An exchange, value of which exceeds Tk.100/-, is to be registered The Appellate Division held that an exchange, value of which exceeds Tk.100/-, is to be registered but in the present case the value of the alleged exchange though more than Tk.100/-was not registered and accordingly having not been registered the alleged exchange is not admissible in evidence and so the finding of the courts below that the exchange has not been proved cannot be interfered and accordingly in the present case Rajab Ali was a custodian of the property and not a licensee. Appellate Division is of the view that the High Court Division on correct assessment of the evidence and the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Munshi Firoz & others =VS= Ruhul Amin & others, [1 LM (AD) 434]
