RIGHT OF WAY OF NECESSITY
INTRODUCTION
A Right of way of Necessity is granted in favour of a property over an adjoining one constituting the only means of ingress to and egress from the former property to some place with which it must of necessity have a communicating link. In the Sri Lankan context this area of the law is governed under the common law principles mean that under the Roman Dutch law concepts. The Roman Dutch law proceeded on a general maxim that there could be no block land and therefore what was called way of necessity was allowed. According to the Van Leeuwen this Right of Way of Necessity is allowed “as well for a person on foot, as with a wagon, in order to gather and carry off the fruits of the land or to drive the
…show more content…
Wickramasinghe[6] followed above principal and stated that a right of way of necessity can not be granted if there is another though less convenient path along which access can be had to the public road.
In this case the plaintiff, who is the owner of the northern three pelas of a land called Diddeniya Kumbure, depicted in plan No. 1903 of 12.1.1961 and marked X in the course of the proceedings, claimed a right of way over the defendant's land along the path ABCD on two causes of action, namely by right of prescriptive user and by way of necessity. After trial the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff respondent had not prescribed to this path but granted a servitude by way of necessity. The defendant has appealed from this order.
It transpired in the course of the evidence that there is another path EF along which the plaintiff could have access to the public road. Mr. De La Motte, the surveyor who prepared the plan X, testified that the road marked EF in plan X appeared to be a well used path and that it is possible to go along this path to the abandoned brick kiln marked 2 and the well No. 3 which are situated in the plaintiff's land. The plaintiff who gave evidence stated that he had only used AB and not the path EF but he admitted under cross-examination that about 50 or 60 people use the road EF to get on to this land for the purpose of going to another well in his land which is marked No. 4 in the plan referred to earlier. He stated that
(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to
(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to
7. The Taylors bought an ocean front lot in Oregon. The next year, Staley bought an ocean front lot south of the Taylors and built a home on it. Over the years, Staley often expressed concern that when the Taylors built their house, they could block her view. They said they would not. When they began planning their home, they asked Staley to submit a letter in support of a setback variance they sought. She said she would as long as her view wasn’t blocked. They again told her it wouldn’t be blocked. When the house was built, it partially blocked her view. She sued for breach of an
The Plaintiff is claiming $35 million from the State of NSW, which is purported to be vicariously liable for the Land and Environment Court and Pain J [1]. This claim includes nullifying Pain J’s judgment [14], and it is accompanied by Motions to uphold Lloyd J’s dismissal and refund the Plaintiff’s filing fees [2].
obtaining land for public use, but was to prevent harm to the public. The Court
The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”
B. However these promotions and ideas were only a cover-up of that the “governor got them to sign a deed for their land without their knowledge”. The chief’s considerer it out of consideration to that it was not in their power to do any such thing without consent from other nations.
The main legal issue to examine regarding this case deals with encroachment, which is simply defined as: A possessory right to the property of another that may be acquired by the passage of time. Crockett has well documented existence of the woodlot property dating back over 20 years and was not met with objection on the part of the Smith, who is the true owner. Due to the fact that the plantiff left the defendant undisturbed for over 20 years, he lost his right to dispute to object the encroachment. Smith would have had to make his objections known regarding Crockett’s occupancy in the log cabin, constructed on his wood lot, many years earlier if he wanted to maintain his right to object.
1. The Mashpee Wamponoag lost their 1976 lawsuit seeking to reclaim approximately 16,000 acres that had previously belonged to them on Cape Cod. Which of the following was not true regarding the case?
In this case, Mr. Brandt had filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government for "the right-of-way crossing" his land had extinguished after the cessation of the railroad activity in the corridor. The Government had argued that this right was created by the Federal General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 and should be valid on the gounds that the railroad line was affirmed to be abandoned. While reviewing this case, it must be determined whether or not that the Government, under this Act, had retained an interest in the abandoned railroad right-of-way.
Issues: Throughout the trail process on behalf of the court the inquiry for exceptions to the charge inaccuracy developed regarding instructions. The appellant was seeking a claim based of the defense of his
The plaintiff’s argument to why the third condition did not meet stated that on previous occasions Foster High School charged the public to hold events on the property. Therefore, the plaintiff states that because the school district has charged the public before to use the recreational space that it is not immune from the liability on the injury on the property.
Codelfa Construction (Plaintiff) had a contract with State Rail Authority NSW (Defendant) to excavate the tunnels for the railway in New South Wales. The contract agreed to complete the work in assured dates and finish it within 130 weeks, to finish work Codelfa were suppose to work three shifts a day and 7 days a week; initially Codelfa Construction was working accordingly. The work was to dig a tunnel so offcourse it was very noisy and caused some vibrations which were annoying to the surrounding residents which led to application quite a few application of nuisance and after a while Codelfa Construction had an injunction where they were forced to reduce the work hours by two shifts a day and not working on Sundays. The problem started here as the working hours were reduced so Codelfa Constructions was not able to finish the work in the set period of time which was given according to the contract therefore Codelfa Construction’s budget did exceed than mentioned in the contract and they needed more time to finish the work.
This case is between Sierra Club petitioners vs. Roger C.B Morton, both parties are arguing whether something should be built on Mineral King Valley area or not. Disney was given permission from the U.S Forest Service to build a resort at the Mineral King Valley and for the resort the State of California proposed to construct a highway of 20 miles length to get into the resort. This case was made because Sierra Club didn’t think it was right to have a ski resort and recreation area made in the national park and forest area. Sierra Club filed a suit against Morton seeking injunction under the Administrative Procedure Act to prevent the development. The Administrative Procedure Act states that a person suffering a legal wrong because of the agency
Law is the expression of the will of the society. Its virtue or vice depends on the social conscience at a given time. A bad law is a manifestation of an aberration in a body politic of the conscience of the society.