AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 188 wordsIf the road is a public thoroughfare, then, inasmuch as the plaintiffs alleged no special injury, the suit for the removal of the encroachment cannot be maintained--Baroda Prasad Mostafi v. Gora Chand Mostafi+ Pyari Lal v. Rooke 3 C.L.R. A.C. 30 : 3 B.L.R. App. 543 : S.C. 11 W.R. 434; Hira Chand Banerjee v. Shama Charan Chatterjee 3 B.L.R. A.C. 351. There is, it is true, a decision to the contrary--Jina Ranchod v. Jodha Ghella 1 Bom. H.C. 11. 1, but the weight of authority supports the view taken by the Judge, which accords with the English law on the subject and is based on principles well understood. But it must be determined whether the road in suit is a public thoroughfare.
------------------------------------Foot Note--------------------------------
+ 3 B.L.R. A.C. 295 : S.C. 12 W.R. 160, followed in Raj Lukhee Debia v. Chunder Kant Chowdry 14 W.R. 173; Bhageeruth Rishee v. Gokool Chunder Mandal 18 W.R. 58; Bhageeruth Doss v. Chundee Churn 22 W.R. 462; Ramtarak Karati v. Dinanath Mandal 7 B.L.R. 184 : S.C. 24 W.R. 414; and Parbati Charan v. Kali Nath 6 B.L.R. App. 73.