IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
Chirakkal Sankaran Nair, [Died; Lrs Impleaded] S/O.Sreedevi Amma – Appellant
Versus
Ponguzhi Parambath Sreedharan Nair [Died] – Respondent
SA No. 18 of 2001
Decided on : 23-08-2024
Easement - Prescriptive Right of Way - Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Sections 15, 114 - The court clarified that while there is no absolute prohibition against claiming a prescriptive easement over paddy field ridges, the presumption is that such use is permissive unless proven otherwise.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed a prescriptive easement right of way over a ridge in a paddy field owned by the defendant, which was denied by the defendant. The trial and appellate courts dismissed the claim due to lack of evidence supporting the claim of right.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not support the plaintiff's claim of prescriptive easement as the user was deemed permissive, and the necessary elements to establish a prescriptive right were not adequately pleaded or proven.
Issues: The main issues were whether a prescriptive right of way can be claimed over ridges of paddy fields, whether the plaint contained sufficient pleadings, and whether the evidence established the prescriptive easement right.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while there is no strict rule against claiming prescriptive easement over paddy field ridges, the burden of proof lies heavily on the claimant to establish that the user was 'as of right' rather than permissive.
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sathish Ninan, J.
This second appeal is before us on a reference. The question posed essentially is, “Is it an invariable rule that a prescriptive easement right of way cannot be claimed over ridges of paddy fields?”
2. The reference order doubts the correctness of the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Thottathil Thamasikkum Cherootty alias Balan v. Puliyaratharayil Velayudhan Nair (AIR 1998 Kerala 164). Therein this Court held, “It is a common feature in Indian villages that people generally pass over the ridges between two paddy fields. Their right of way can only be permissive”.
3. We have heard learned counsel Sri.K.P.Sudheer the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel Smt.Sumathy Dandapani on behalf of the respondents.
4. In Smt.Balley and another v. Rama Shanker Lal and others (AIR 1975 Allahabad 461) it was held,
Again, in Vidya Sagar v. Ram Das (AIR 1976 Allahabad 415) it was held :
This Court, in Cherootty @ Balan's case (supra), adopted the very same reasoning of the Allahabad High Court.
5. In our opinion, the judgment in Cherootty alias Balan (supra), the correctness of which has been doubted in the reference order, and the judgments of the Allahabad High Court referred to earlier, do not lay down that there is an absolute prohibition against the claim of a prescriptive easement right of way over the ridges of paddy fields. All that was held was that, it is common in our Country, especially in the villages, that people pass and re-pass over the ridges of paddy fields for their convenient access. Such user is very common. It is not objected to by the owner of the paddy field. So also such user and access is hardly considered as one of 'right'. Courts cannot be oblivious of such common course of events.
6. In Aftab Ahmad Ansari v. State of Uttaranchal, [(2010) 2 SCC 583], at paragraph 15, the Apex Court held,
In Mahabir Singh v. Anant Ram (AIR 1966 All. 214) it was held,
7. Thus, it is having due regard to the habits of the people in this Country that it was held that, generally, the presumption is that the user of ridges of paddy field for passing and re-passing is not under a colour of right, but is generally considered to be a permissive user.
8. There is yet another feature of ridges. They are not always kept intact. It is used to aid irrigation in paddy cultivation. The land is divided into various plots. Changes are made in the ridges to inundate and desiccate the plots. Its
Thottathil Thamasikkum Cherootty alias Balan v. Puliyaratharayil Velayudhan Nair AIR 1998 Ker 164
Vidya Sagar v. Ram Das AIR 1976 All 415
Smt.Balley and another v. Rama Shanker Lal and others AIR 1975 All 461
Mahabir Singh v. Anant Ram (AIR 1966 All. 214)
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.
The prescriptive right to an easement requires uninterrupted, open user of the pathway, not existing under consent, corroborated by the surrounding facts and circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific pleadings and categorical evidence to establish the right of easement by prescription, as well as the essential ingred....
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....
Easement by prescription requires proof of continuous use for the statutory period; mere permissive use does not establish a right.
Establishment of easement rights requires explicit documentation, and mere permissive rights do not confer legal easements; plaintiffs failed to prove their claim.
Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an easementary right over the claimed suit way, leading to dismissal of the suit.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.