Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.
M/s M M Plastoware India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Umeshbhai Bhanabhai Patel & Anr. – Respondents
R/Appeal from Order No. 53 of 2024 With Civil Application (For STAY) No. 1 of 2024
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Easement of Grant - Injunction Application - Sections 6, 8, 13, 41 of the Easement Act, 1882 and Section 8, 48 of the Transfer of Property Act - The court discussed the nature of easement of grant, the rights created by transfer, and the priority of rights created by transfer. The judgment also referred to various cases to establish the legal principles governing easements and injunction applications.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a Special Civil Suit and an application for injunction to restrain the defendants from entering and constructing a road on the disputed property. The trial court rejected the application, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants had the right of way through a registered agreement, and the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss also favored the defendants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the plaintiff's claim for injunction, the nature of the rights granted to the defendants, and the application of legal principles governing easements and injunctions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the easement in question was by way of grant, and the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case for injunction. The court also emphasized the importance of considering the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in such matters.
Final Decision: The appeal from order was dismissed at the admission stage, affirming the trial court's decision to reject the application for injunction.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal from order is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the CPC’ for short) for the following prayers:
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 15.12.2023, passed by the Ld. Principal Senior Civil Judge at Umargaon, District : Valsad in Special Civil Suit No.15 of 2023, passed below Exh.5 more particularly, produced at Annexure-A to the present appeal and further be pleased to grant the injunction, filed below Exh.5 by restraining the defendants herein from entering into the property owned and possessed by the plaintiff more particularly mentioned as property (S-1, S-2 and S-3) in the present appeal;
(C) xxxx”
2. The appellant-original plaintiff filed the Special Civil Suit No.15 of 2023 for the reliefs prayed therein on the facts stated in the memo of the plaint. Along with the said suit, application at Exh.5 was filed for injunction for the following prayers:
(2) This Hon’ble Court be further by an Order pleased to restrain Defendant No.1 & 2, their assigns, agents, servants, representatives, partners, associates, or any other persons claiming through them from disturbing the possession of the Plaintiff in “the Suit Property-I”, in any manner whatsoever.
(3) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant interim/ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (I) and (ii) herein.
(4) The costs of this suit be provided for.
(5) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant any other and further relief in favour of the Plaintiff as the nature and circumstances of the case may require to meet the ends of justice.”
3. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the sides, framed the issues in the said application and rejected the said application after giving detailed observations and discussion. It is against this order, the present appeal from order is filed.
4. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and also perused the material available on the record including the impugned order.
4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant has mainly harped on the fact that though the Deed of Right of Way was executed on 7.2.2013, the defendants were not permitted under the said disputed agreement to construct the road through the property of the plaintiff. He has further submitted that the parties have already, as per their mutual understanding, cancelled the Deed of Right of Way dated 7.3.2013 and the said act of the defendants whereby they are trying to enforce their alleged rights under the said revoked Deed of Right of Way dated 7.3.2013 has not only shocked and surprised the plaintiff but also at the same time has put the plaintiff in grave fear of exposing his property to various unforeseen circumstances which may jeopardize the rights and interests of the plaintiff.
4.2 Learned advocate has further submitted that due to such high handedness shown by the defendants for trying to put up the construction, the plaintiff has issued legal notice on 3.10.2023 and subsequent notice on 20.10.2023 which were sent to the registered postal address of the defendants and also forwarded through e-mail address of the defendants and also on whatsapp and mobile number and he has also sent the necessary communication to the office of Mamlatdar as well as police station by seeking their intervention to avoid any dispute over the properties of the plaintiffs. In this factual background, he has submitted that the learned court below, while deciding the application for injunction, has not properly considered the submission made at the bar and wrongly relied on the judgments cited at the bar which are as such not applicable and has proceeded further in de
Establishment of easement rights requires explicit documentation, and mere permissive rights do not confer legal easements; plaintiffs failed to prove their claim.
The court emphasized that granting a temporary injunction requires clear evidence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, which were inadequately established by the pla....
Easement rights conveyed through property transfers can include implied grants, and a defendant cannot restrict access without legal rights to do so.
Implied easement rights for property use transfer automatically, barring explicit contradictory intentions in property deeds.
A plaintiff can seek a temporary injunction to protect an easementary right even if a formal declaration of that right has not been made, provided they can demonstrate a prima facie case and the abse....
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.
Easementary rights must be clearly established through evidence of grant or necessity, and a plaintiff must seek a declaration of such rights to challenge property alienation.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the evidence and the application of the legal principles, including the provisions of the Easement Act, 1882, to determine....
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....
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
