The plaintiff sought a declaration of easementary right by prescription for motorable access to her property through the defendants' adjoining land, along with a permanent injunction against obstruction. (!) [1000093210001] Her property, including a house and garage, was surrounded by compound walls, with the claimed 50-meter access starting from a public road and passing through the defendants' property; she alleged continuous use for over 25 years by herself and prior by in-laws.[1000093210003] Defendants denied the claim, asserting the plaintiff had an existing southern access to a public road, which she closed in 1984 to fabricate the eastern claim, supported by witness evidence and photographs showing pillars of a former southern gate blocked by rubble.[1000093210003][1000093210005]

The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting the easement and injunction.[1000093210006] The first appellate court reversed, finding no pleadings or proof of use "as of right" peacefully, openly, and uninterrupted for 20 years under the Easements Act, and noting alternative southern access, thus dismissing the suit.[1000093210007] The High Court allowed the second appeal, restoring the trial court's decree.[1000093210008]

On appeal, the Supreme Court held that easement by prescription requires specific pleadings and categorical evidence of peaceful, open, uninterrupted use as of right for 20 years, from a defined start date; the plaintiff failed this, as evidence showed southern access use historically and eastern use only from 1984, obstructed soon after by defendants. (!) [1000093210009][judgement_act_referred][judgement_subject] Photographs confirmed the blocked southern gate, negating necessity.[1000093210009] The appeal was allowed, High Court and trial court orders set aside, first appellate decree upheld, suit dismissed.[1000093210010] (!)