A servient owner cannot substitute a new way for a right of way acquired by custom or lost grant without the consent of the dominant owner.

( 1 ) THE defendants are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff and the defendants are the owners of neighbouring fields separated by a pathway for some distance. The suit was laid by the plaintiff for a declaration of his easementary right to a way along ABEF and ND TV pathways shown in the plan and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the thatti wall CGRS put up by them and also a bund for a kunta lying in their land in so far as it had been extended. There was also a prayer for a prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from causing obstruction to the two pathways in the future and thereby causing damage to the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but decreed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge.

( 2 ) THE defendants admitted the existence of the two pathways but alleged that the plaintiff had agreed to the putting up of the thatti wall and that they had also left sufficient space to the east of the wall on their land for the villagers to pass through the defendant s land. They also pleaded that the plaintiff had no cause of action because he had not sustained any special damage. The Courts below found that the agreement set up by the defendants was not true. A commissioner was appointed to inspect the locality and to prepare a plan. The plan prepared by the commissioner was marked as Exhibit P-1 (a) and the commissioner was examined as p. W. 2. Admittedly the defendants raised a thatti wall in the portion CGRS quite recently and the finding is that it caused obstruction to both the pathways referred to in the plaint. There was also a finding by the lower appellate Court that the construction of the thatti wall led to a concentration at a few points of water flowing from the defendants land on to the land of the plaintiff and an erosion of the plaintiff s land by the discharge of water in that manner.

( 3 ) IT is argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant that so long as persons entitled to use the pathway as it existed all along could pass through another portion of the defendants land, there was no injury caused by the obstruction to the pathway and that the plaintiff had not sustained any special damage by reason of such obstruction so as to entitle him to sue. The learned Advocate also referred to section 22 of the Easements Act which provides that the dominant owner must exercise his right in the mode which is least onerous to the servient owner and that when the exercise of an easement can without detriment to the dominant owner be confined to a determinate part of the servient heritage, such exercise shall, at the request of the servient owner, be so confined.

( 4 ) WE have here to deal with a village pathway which connects the suit village oppicherla with Vepakampalli, an adjacent village. The pathway is not a public highway in the sense that it has been dedicated to the public at large. The allegation in the plaint and the finding of the Court is that it is an immemorial pathway set apart for the use of the villagers of Oppicherla and the adjacent village and that the pathway ran along the line shown in the plan annexed to the plaint. In the case of these village pathways which are not highways dedicated to the public at large but fall within the category of private pathways, it is open to a permanent resident of the village entitled to use the pathway to have a wrongful obstruction to the pathway removed by means of a suit for an injunction without proving special damage unlike the case of a public high way. The injury is one which is individual to the plaintiff and he can bring a suit for removal of the obstruction and for an injunction restraining the defendants from repeating it. The fact that others might have suffered a similar injury and might have joined the plaintiff in a representative suit with the sanction of the Court under Order 1, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, does not stand in the way of plaintiff himself insti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document