Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J
Navinchand S/o Tilakchand Shah - Appellant
Versus
Bhikulal Ramdulare Gupta - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL NO.52 OF 2006
Decided On : 06-01-2025
(A) Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Sections 13 and 15 - Easementary rights - Plaintiffs claimed easementary rights by prescription and necessity over a door in the suit wall to repair their southern wall - The trial court denied the easementary rights, while the appellate court allowed them - The High Court maintained the trial court's decision, emphasizing the plaintiffs' failure to establish uninterrupted use for 20 years and the absence of absolute necessity. (Paras 29, 33)
(B) Appeal - Scope of second appeal - The High Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding unless shown to be based on no evidence or misreading of records. (Paras 30, 32)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, owners of a house, claimed easementary rights to use a door in the middle wall to access the eastern service lane for repairs, which the defendants contested, asserting it was a common wall. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's findings that the plaintiffs failed to prove their easementary rights and maintained the decree that the suit wall belongs exclusively to the plaintiffs. (Paras 33)
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs established their easementary rights by prescription or necessity and the validity of the appellate court's reversal of the trial court's findings. (Paras 9, 29)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not prove continuous and open use of the door for 20 years, nor did they demonstrate absolute necessity for the easement. (Paras 29, 33)
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of the first appellate court quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
1. By this appeal, appellants have challenged judgment and decree passed in RCA No.6/1994 by learned 2nd Ad Hoc Additional District Judge, Achalpur dated 29.9.2005 by which the appeal of respondents was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court to the extent of counter claim in respect of the injunction on user of JC door to go to the eastern service lane was set aside. It was further directed that the plaintiffs’ claim to restrain the defendants permanently from interfering with their right to repair their southern wall by going through the door JC is decreed. The defendants were permanently restrained from interfering the plaintiffs to use JC door to repair their southern wall.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiffs case are as under:
3. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are brothers and they are owners of house bearing municipal No.71, situated on nazul plot No.127, sheet No.19, in ward No.8, Paratwada. The original owner of the said house property was their grandfather Ramdhin who purchased it by registered sale deed dated 28.7.1975 and reconstructed it in the same year. The house of the defendants is situated on south of their house. As per contentions of the plaintiffs, the wall between both the houses belongs to them. One Shankarlal Agrawal was initially tenant in the house of the defendants. In the October 1984, the defendants took possession of their house from the tenant. In December 1984, the defendants raised the height of the room by two feet by lifting the curb roof. While lifting the height of room, the defendants removed and refixed beams and rafters two feet above in the middle wall unauthorizedly. The defendants also scratched the middle wall from southern side and there are scratches on the wall inside north-south. The plaintiffs have incurred the expenses to repair the wall. As soon as the plaintiffs came to know about illegal and unauthorized act of the defendants, by issuing notice dated 2.1.1985 the defendants were called upon to maintain the status quo and also asked to repair the wall. Despite the service of notice on them, they neither repaired the wall nor maintained the status quo. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that there is a door on the east side of the middle wall which opened in the house of the defendants. The plaintiffs have right to use the door to go towards east to repair the southern side of the middle wall by entering into the defendants’ house. But, the defendants by notice reply called the plaintiffs to close the door. As per the plaintiffs, they have an easementary right by prescription as well as by way of necessity to use the door and, therefore, they preferred the suit for declaration that the middle wall belongs to them exclusively and they have right to use the eastern door in the middle wall by way of easementary right and also claimed the compensation towards the repair of the southern side wall.
4. The defendants contested the suit with contention that the plaintiffs have no easementary right to enter into the house of the defendants to repair the wall. In fact, no damage is caused to the middle wall. The middle wall is common wall. The defendants have admitted that they have obtained the possession in October 1994 and raised the height of roof by two feet and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The defendants have also claimed by way of counter claim that the door which opens in their house be closed permanently and the plaintiffs are not entitled to have door on the south east corner and sought mandatory injunction against the plaintiffs. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, necessary issues were framed by the trial court. In support of the contentions, the plaintiffs examined as many as five witnesses namely PW1 Ramkrishna Sahastrabuddhe Exh.43, PW2 Bhikulal Ramdulare Gupta plaintiff himself vide Exh.55, PW3 Shankarlal Agrawal vide Exh.64 the tenant of the defendants, PW4 Ramratan Gupta vide Exh.65 and PW5 Sham Deshpande
Easementary rights must be established through continuous use for 20 years and absolute necessity, which the plaintiffs failed to prove.
Easementary rights must be established by clear evidence of uninterrupted use for 20 years; mere convenience does not suffice for easement of necessity.
Easementary rights must be evidenced by uninterrupted and peaceable enjoyment for twenty years, as per Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, to be enforceable.
Point of law : an inference of fact from a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms or a term of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the app....
The court established that an easementary right can be acquired through long-term, uninterrupted use, even if the specific phrase 'as of right' is not explicitly stated in the pleadings, provided the....
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish their case, and the court will uphold decisions based on evidence presented, rejecting contentions of delay and laches, and the applicability ....
Easementary rights must be substantiated by clear evidence of continuous use, and title documents play a crucial role in determining such rights.
The court affirmed that claims for easement by prescription require clear evidence of uninterrupted enjoyment for 30 years and that different causes of action can support distinct suits without invok....
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
