✦ Supreme Court of India

BACHHAJ NAHAR v. NILIMA & Anr.

Civil Appeal No. 5798-5799 of 2008R V RAVEENDRAN, LOKESHWAR SINGH ANTA22 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

A B [2008] 14 S.C.R. 621 ----.r~ BACHHAJ NAHAR v. NILIMA MANDAL & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos.5798-5799 of 2008) ..,.. • l • _,, r ). JI '- SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 [R. v. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH ANTA, JJ] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 0. 6 r 1 - Pleadings - Suit for declaration of title and c possession of strip of land - Decreed partly by trial court hold- ing that swt property was part of plaintiffs' property and defen- dant having put up construction over the encroached portion, directed to pay price for the same - Dismissal of suit by first appellate court holding that plaintiff failed to prove title over D property - In second appeal, High Court while holding that plaintiffs not owners of property, granted relief based on easementary right of passage over suit property - On appeal, held: Relief should be founded on pleadings made by parties - easementary right and opportunity to defendant to deny such claim, High Court could not have converted suit for title into suit for easementary right- Servient owner also not impleaded as defendant- Thus, order of High Court set aside and that of first appellate court restored - High Court at best could have F reserved liberty to plaintiffs to file separate suit for easement. In absence of pleadings as to claim by plaintiffs based on E Pleadings and issues - Object and purpose of - Ex- plained.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status (search case no. Civil Appeal No. 5798-5799 of 2008). ← Search more judgments