Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal,, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala,, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Singh, Adv. Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv. Ms. Vidisha Swrup, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Devansh Anoop Mohta, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Amit Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nilakanta Nayak, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Narayan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, AOR

Based on the provided legal document, acquiring easementary rights through a simple sale deed and continuous use of a path since 1995 may not automatically guarantee relief under the Easements Act or for encroachment claims.

The court emphasized that for easement by prescription, the use must be peaceable, continuous, and without interruption for over 20 years prior to the suit. Merely using a path since 1995 would generally be insufficient if the use was not proven to be continuous and uninterrupted for the required period, especially if the claimants cannot substantiate that they or their predecessors-in-interest have enjoyed the right openly and without dispute for over 20 years (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the transfer of land via a simple sale deed does not automatically include easement rights unless explicitly stated or legally established that such rights were acquired prior to the transfer. In the absence of clear evidence that easement rights were possessed and transferred legally, a claim based solely on a sale deed and subsequent use is unlikely to succeed (!) (!) .

Additionally, continuous use since 1995 alone does not suffice unless it can be demonstrated that the use was open, continuous, and without interruption for more than 20 years, and that the right was legally established before the institution of the suit. The court also pointed out that mere use over a period does not establish easement rights if the legal requirements for prescription are not met (!) .

In the context of encroachment, relief would depend on whether the use is deemed to be lawful or unlawful. If the use is considered an encroachment, legal action might be necessary to remove the encroachment, but establishing a right under the Easements Act would require fulfilling the criteria for easement by prescription or necessity, which, as discussed, may not be satisfied solely by use since 1995 (!) (!) .

In summary, simply purchasing land through a sale deed and using a path since 1995 does not automatically entitle one to relief under the Easements Act or for encroachment unless the necessary legal conditions—such as uninterrupted use for over 20 years, proof of legal possession of easement rights, and proper documentation—are satisfied.