Back
SATYA BRATA SANYAL
Suntosh Kumar Banerjee – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Kant Gupta – Respondent
Subject and Legal Principles: The case concerns easement of necessity under the Easements Act (Sections 13, 15). An easement of necessity arises only upon severance of tenements that were previously under common ownership, dividing a single tenement into separate units where one cannot be used without a privilege (e.g., right of way) over the other. It is implied by law on principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, not mere convenience.[judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred]
Factual Background: R.S. Plot No. 178 (recorded as Kast land) was sold in 1934 to plaintiff No. 1 (northern portion) and defendant's ancestor (southern portion). Defendant's ancestor built a house in 1936 and purchased a passage on adjacent Plot No. 179 (west of Plot 178, leading to Kutchery Road) from a third party. Plaintiffs claim easement of necessity over this fenced passage on Plot 179, alleging prior joint use and current obstruction by a wall. Northern portion of Plot 178 later transferred to plaintiff No. 2, with alternative access via a cinema hall door disputed as inadequate. (!) [8000056580001][8000056580002]
Trial Courts' Findings: Lower courts decreed plaintiffs' suit for easement of necessity, holding they would be land-locked without the passage and rejecting shared family access arguments.[8000056580001][8000056580003]
High Court's Analysis on Easement of Necessity: The claim fails as Plots 178 and 179 never formed a single tenement under common ownership, nor was there severance creating necessity. Popular notion that lack of alternative access alone grants such easement is incorrect; unity of ownership is essential. (!) [8000056580003][8000056580004][8000056580005]
Easement by Prescription: Plaintiffs faintly claimed long user (>20 years), but failed to plead/prove peaceful, open enjoyment as of right, independently of permission. Evidence shows plaintiff sought permission, negating prescription under Limitation Act, 1963, Section 25.[8000056580006]
Decision: Second appeal allowed; lower courts' judgments/decrees set aside. No costs ordered.[8000056580007]
1. Defendants second appeal is against concurrent judgment of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiffs suit for easement of necessity.
2. The suit has been decreed on the popular notion about an easement of necessity that whenever a man has no other way, he can claim the right to go over his neighbour"s land, which, however, is not supported either by principle or by authorities. The crucial question involved in this appeal is what is an easement of necessity.
3. The short facts germane to the said issue in appeal are as hereunder. There is one R.S. Plot No. 178 situated in village Gopalpur, P. S. Motihari, under Motihari Municipality. The land was recorded as Kast land of one Laldhari Mahra. After the death of Laldhari Mahra his heirs sold the land in the year 1934 to plaintiff No. 1 and the ancestor of defendant. Shri Ravindra Nath Mukherji through separate sale deeds. Plaintiff No. 1 purchased towards the north of the said plot and the ancestor of the defendant towards the south. In the year 1936 Ravindra Nath Mukherji built his house on his purchased land. Plaintiff No. 1, however, used the land purchased for growing vegetables. Towards the further west of the said plo
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
