Back
Kunheedu – Appellant
Versus
Mymoona – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. Badharudeen, J.
1. The defendant in O.S. No. 61/2010 on the files of Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi, has filed this Second Appeal challenging the decree and judgment in the above Suit dated 23.12.2015 and the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 22/2016 dated 12.07.2023 on the files of the Sub Court, Tirur. The plaintiffs are the respondents herein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant on admission.
3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal with reference to their status before the trial court, as ‘plaintiffs’ and ‘defendant’ hereafter for easy reference.
4. Perused the verdicts under challenge and the lower court records made available.
5. Suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing use of B schedule way or to annex the same as part of the defendant's property. Later the Suit was amended with additional prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the B schedule pathway since there was demolition of the same during the pendency of the Suit. According to the plaintiffs, B schedule pathway available to the property of the defendant is the only access to pl
For a second appeal to be maintainable, a substantial question of law must be formulated, as mandated by Section 100 of the CPC.
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 right to use a path for accessing one's property can be established through long-term use and relevant property documents, regardless of explicit claims under the Easement Act.
Element of necessity may not be so absolute as in the case of an easement of necessity and unlike it a quasi-easement may not get extinguished by the cessation of the necessity.
A plaintiff must prove the existence of a claimed easement pathway with independent evidence to succeed in injunction claims.
A claimant must establish exclusive settled possession and document rights to land for relief against interference; admissions impacting access rights must be substantiated.
Establishment of easement rights requires explicit documentation, and mere permissive rights do not confer legal easements; plaintiffs failed to prove their claim.
Easement rights require clear identification and specific evidence; the absence of a proper survey plan undermines claims for easement by prescription.
To establish an easement of necessity, there must be common ownership and impossibility of enjoyment of one tenement without the other; mere lack of alternative access is insufficient.
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
