In Brief
The respondent sought to establish an easementary right to use pathways on the appellant's adjacent land to reach his own property. Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected his claim, finding he had not established the right and that an alternative route existed. The High Court, in a Second Appeal, reversed the concurrent findings and granted the respondent permission to use the pathways. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere because no genuine substantial question of law arose. The requirement under Section 100 of the CPC that a Second Appeal address a substantial question of law is mandatory and based on public policy to give finality to findings of fact. The Court also held that counsel cannot make concessions that bind parties without proper authorization."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.