Back
B. V. NAGARATHNA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
Jayanandan – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar – Respondent
ORDER
NAGARATHNA, J.
1. Application for permission to file the petition is allowed.
Delay in filing the applications for substitution and setting- aside abatement is condoned.
Applications for substitution and setting-aside abatement are allowed.
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Kerala High Court passed in R.S.A. No.1432/2011 dated 01.10.2019 by which the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S. No.69/2010 dated 30.11.2011 was partly sustained, the appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.
3. It is stated that in 2004, by virtue of Sale Deed No.3363/2004, the original plaintiffs, who were husband and wife, got title and possession over the suit property being Sy. No. 258/3 (Re. Sy. O. 293/14) and the shops AP x 460, 461 etc in Athiyanoor village, Kamukincode P.O Kodangavila, District Trivandrum in State of Kerala, and have been in absolute possession since then.
4. The suit property is bounded by specific boundaries on all four sides of and, pertinently, the defendants’ property is immediately to the north of the suit property.
5. The present controversy finds its origins in the defendants’ act to cut and remove six jack fruit trees on 02.05.2007
The necessity of evidence to support claims in pleadings is paramount; amendments to written statements require further consideration and evidence.
Easement claims require accurate pleadings; courts must allow amendments that aid in justice.
The court affirmed that the Suit Property is a Natham Pathway, granting plaintiffs limited injunction against obstruction until defendants prove their title.
Establishment of easement rights requires explicit documentation, and mere permissive rights do not confer legal easements; plaintiffs failed to prove their claim.
The court affirmed the Plaintiffs' easementary rights based on historical use and legal documentation, emphasizing the significance of such rights in property law.
The court emphasized that granting a temporary injunction requires clear evidence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, which were inadequately established by the pla....
Easement rights granted through a final decree are permanent and cannot be extinguished by the existence of alternate pathways.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
