Back
P. G. AJITHKUMAR
Pappachan, S/o. Issahac – Appellant
Versus
Alex, S/o. Joseph – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants filed O.S.No.261 of 1999 before the Munsiff’s Court, Perumbavoor seeking a decree of declaration and injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory. Their claim was that they prescribed right of way along plaint C schedule pathway. The respondents, part of whose property is plaintiff C schedule, opposed that claim by contending that such a pathway never existed and the same was the ridge of their paddy field. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit as per the judgment dated 11.06.2007. In the appeal preferred by the appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the learned Additional District judge, North Paravur confirmed the said judgment and decree. Aggrieved by the same, this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code is preferred.
2. The substantial questions of law formulated for consideration are,-
2) Is the finding of facts by the courts below in relation to the claim of the appellants that they prescribed right of way along plaint C schedule is so irrational attracting the blame of being perverse?
3. The 1st appellant is the ow
'Easement' is a precarious and special right. The right of easement is one which a person claims over a land that is not his own.
Easement rights require clear identification and specific evidence; the absence of a proper survey plan undermines claims for easement by prescription.
The presumption of permissive use applies to ridges of paddy fields, and the burden is on the claimant to prove a prescriptive right of way.
First appellate court's perverse denial of pathway existence and prescriptive easement set aside; trial decree restored on unimpeachable commissioners' reports, witness evidence proving 50+ years' op....
The plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to establish the use of a specific width of way for the statutory period required to acquire a prescriptive easement right.
Plaintiff failed to prove prescriptive easement right under Section 15, Easements Act due to lack of evidence of continuous use, direct alternative access, and unmarked title deeds.
The prescriptive right to an easement requires uninterrupted, open user of the pathway, not existing under consent, corroborated by the surrounding facts and circumstances.
Establishment of easement rights requires explicit documentation, and mere permissive rights do not confer legal easements; plaintiffs failed to prove their claim.
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
