9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.A. No. 71 of 2002. Appellant and late Kamakshya Kumar, husband of Dipti Dasgupta Respondent No. 2 herein are brothers. Banjula Dastidar, Respondent No. 1 herein is their sister. They had one more sister Bulbul Dastidar (who died in November, 1987). A suit was filed by Respondent No. 1 against the appellant inter alia for declaration of title in regard to their residential house situate at P-824, New Alipore, Kolkata. Allegedly, the appellant had put a lock, in a room where Respondent No. 1 Banjula used to stay, on 16.03.1987. An inventory was made in the said suit by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. A suit was filed by the appellant thereafter. A counter claim was filed by Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers [AIR 1935 Calcutta 405]. It was a suit for declaration of plaintiff s right in respect of user of the lands on which certain sheds had been created as a passage which was obstructing thereto. It was in that premise held to be a continuing wrong. A suit for damages, in our opinion, stands on a different footing vis- - vis a continuous wrong in respect of enjoyment of one s right in a property. When a right of way is claimed whether public or private over a certain land over which the tort-feasor has no right of possession, the breaches would be continuing one. It is, however, indisputable that unless the wrong is a continuing one, period of limitation does not stop running. Once the period begins to run, it does not stop except where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... she should have filed a suit within a period of three years from the said date. Furthermore, Respondent No. 1 knew about the purported alleged wrongful act on the part of the appellant. She filed an application in the nature of pro intersse suo in the earlier suit. The same was rejected. Her cause of action was different and distinct from that of her brother. One lis was in relation to the declaration of title as also possession, another one was in respect of damages for wrongful detention of specific movable properties. Only because in another legal proceedings by and between the appellant and Respondent No. 2, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and inventory of the goods of the said room was prepared, the same, in our opinion, woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
