Back
1975 Supreme(AP) 183
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHENNAKESAVA REDDY
Venkateswaraswamivaru Devasthanam - Appellant
Versus
Velidandla Kanakalakshmi - Respondent
Decided On : 09-26-75
A person cannot acquire an easement over his own land.
Headnote:
EASEMENT - OWNERSHIP - SECTION 4 OF THE INDIAN EASEMENTS ACT, 1882 - A PERSON CANNOT ACQUIRE AN EASEMENT OVER HIS OWN LAND AS ALL ACTS DONE BY HIM OVER HIS OWN LAND ARE ACTS DONE IN EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS AS OWNER OF THE LAND AND THE PRIME REQUISITE OF ANIMUS FOR ACQUISITION IS THEREBY ABSENT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of plots 2 to 4 of the plaint plan and sought a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the said plots. The defendant denied the plaintiff's ownership and claimed that the plots belonged to the defendant-Devasthanam.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish her title to the suit property and that the defendant-temple established its right to and possession of the suit sites. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had acquired an easement to use the plots for ingress and egress.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff could acquire an easement over her own land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a person cannot acquire an easement over his own land because all acts done by him over his own land are acts done in exercise of his rights as owner of the land and the prime requisite of animus for acquisition is thereby absent. The court further held that the plaintiff's claim of ownership of the plots was inconsistent with her claim of an easement, and that the acts done by the plaintiff over the plots were referable to her purported ownership of the plots, not to an easement.
Final Decision: The court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate court, and dismissed the suit.
( 1 ) THE Second Appeal is preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Fist Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in Appeal Suit No. 67 of 1971 by which the learned Subordinate Judge set aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Vijayawada in Original Suit No. 406 of 1969 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.
( 2 ) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs exclusive possession of the site covered by Plot Nos. 2 to 4 of the plaint plan by using the door-ways marked Q and R, therein and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to get the loose earth and stones placed at the door-way marked Q removed. According to the plaintiffs the suit property was bequeathed to the first plaintiff who is the wife of the second plaintiff by her father under a will, Ex. A-1 dated 14-4-1956. It was also alternatively pleaded that the plaintiffs have been in uninterrupted, open, notorious and exclusive possession for over 20 years with the animus of ownership in plots 2 to 4 and thereby perfected their title by the long and continuous possession to those plots. It was alleged that there is a Mandapam JKHM shown in the plaint plan which was never used by the defendant for any religious purposes of the temple for over a period of 50 years and that the officials of the defendant are threatening to interfere with the plaintiffs right to and possession of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defence in the suit was that the plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest to the plots 2 to 4 of the plaint plan and that the said plots are owned by and have been in exclusive possession of the defendant-Devasthanam. It was also alleged that the Mandapam was used for Brahmotsavams for deity till a new Mandapam was constructed recently.
( 3 ) THE only document filed by the first plaintiff to establish her ownership to the three plots was Ex. A-1, a copy of an unregistered will. P. W. 1 its scribe and P. W. 3, the attestor, are also examined to prove it. It is stated that the original will had become too old for preservation in Court. The testator, it appears, died. The defendant Temple filed Ex. B-1, the survey map showing alignment of survey numbers and Ex. B-2, the survey extract of the Town Survey Register showing Survey No. 353 to belong to Venkateswaraswamy Gudi. The Executive Officer has examined himself as D. W. 1. D. Ws. 2 to 4 are examined to show that the Mandapam has been in existence for the last 50 or 60 years and that Utsavams were being performed in the Mandapam till the construction of a new Mandapam inside the temple about 15 years ago. The trial court, on a consideration of the entire evidence in the case held : 1. That the first plaintiff failed to establish her title to plots 2 to 4 of the plaint plan, 2. That the defendant-temple established its right to and possession of the suit sites; 3. That the concept of ownership is incompatible with and cannot co-exist with any easementary right in respect of the property when the ownership is claimed; and 4. that the suit claim is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit was dismissed and the plaintiffs were directed to pay exemplary costs of Rs. 200 to the defendant.
( 4 ) ON appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge affirmed the finding of the trial court that the lst plaintiff failed to establish her title to the suit property. He however, held that the first plaintiff through her tenant has been using the vacant site for the past 20 years to reach the door-ways Q and R and thereby acquired an easementary right to use the plots for ingress and egress. Consequently, he decreed the suit.
( 5 ) THE only question that was debated before me in detail was that the claim of the first plaintiff right from the plaint to the conclusion of the trial is that
