Advocates Appeared:
Sejal K Mandavia, Adv., Anshin Desai, Adv., Venu H Nanavaty, Adv.

Case Summary

• This is a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC challenging the judgment of the lower appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No.21/2014, arising from Regular Civil Suit No.35/2011 for declaration and permanent injunction regarding right of way. (!) [13000280890009]

Parties and Facts

• Appellants (original defendants) own Survey No.111 at village Limadhra, Taluka Visavadar, District Junagadh. [13000280890002]
• Respondents (original plaintiffs): Plaintiff No.1 owns Survey No.105 paiki 7 (H-1-13-1-A) and paiki 9 (H-1-34-56-A); Plaintiff No.2 owns Survey No.105 paiki 3 (H-7-47-66-A); Plaintiff No.3 owns Survey No.106 paiki 1 (H-1-65-92-A), all at same village. [13000280890002]
• Respondents and ancestors used road/way through Survey Nos.122, 109, and 111 (specifically middle of Survey No.111) to access fields for over 100 years; appellants obstructed it, causing difficulties. [13000280890002]
• Suit prayed for declaration of right to use way through Survey No.111 and injunction against obstruction or alteration. [13000280890002]

Trial Court Findings

• Issues: (1) Whether plaintiffs prove way through Survey No.111 and right to pass? (2) Whether defendants obstructed? (3) Entitlement to relief? (4) Order/decree? (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Issues (1) and (2) affirmed; Issue (3) partly affirmed due to alternative western-side way in Survey No.111; decreed right over alternative western road (min. 12 ft wide at defendants' cost), vacated interim order, status quo till appeal. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Lower Appellate Court

• Allowed plaintiffs' appeal, quashed trial court decree, granted full declaration and permanent injunction for original way through Survey No.111 as prayed in plaint para-10. (!) (!) (!)

Substantial Questions of Law

• (i) Lower appellate court erred in misappreciating evidence, esp. measurement sheet Exh.142, allowing appeal. (!)
• (ii) Erred in not holding alternative way exists (as per trial court), denying easement by necessity through middle of Survey No.111. (!)

Appellants' Arguments

• Trial court correctly applied Section 22 Easements Act due to alternative way; plaintiffs cannot insist on middle way when less onerous border way exists. (!) [13000280890011] (!)

Respondents' Arguments

• Trial court erred on Section 22; alternative way submerges in monsoon (photos shown); both courts affirmed easement by grant through Survey No.111; alternative plea raised post-evidence. (!) [13000280890013]

High Court's Analysis and Decision

• Scope of Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC: Interferes only on substantial question of law; concurrent findings not disturbed unless perverse/no evidence/wrong inference. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Easement defined (Section 4): Right for beneficial enjoyment of dominant heritage over servient heritage. (!) (!)
• Kinds (Section 5): Continuous/discontinuous, apparent/non-apparent; right of way is discontinuous/apparent. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Essentials/characteristics: Dominant/servient tenements, different owners, for beneficial enjoyment, defined right. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Acquisition conditions (prescription, Sections 15, etc.): Peaceably, openly, as easement, as of right, uninterrupted, 20 years. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Acquisition by grant (Section 8): Express/implied/presumed from long/immemorial use (lost grant doctrine); no fixed period. (!) (!)
• Section 22: Dominant owner exercises right least onerous to servient; confinable to determinate part at servient's request. (!) (!) (!)
• Section 23: Dominant may alter mode/place if no added burden (exception for way). (!) (!)
• Once defined way by grant exists from long use, servient cannot substitute alternative, even if less onerous; Section 22 applies only if way undefined. [13000280890030][13000280890041]
• Here, easement by grant (long/immemorial use >100 years) through specific middle way of Survey No.111; not extinguished by alternative (even if submerges seasonally); trial court erred, lower appellate correct. [13000280890030][13000280890041]
• No substantial question of law; findings not perverse; appeal dismissed. [13000280890042]