Back
M. A. ABDUL HAKHIM
Thankappan, (Died) Nikathil – Appellant
Versus
Rajan, (Died) Legal Heirs Impleaded S/o. Andrews – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
[RSA Nos.549/2011, 569/2011]
1. These two appeals arise from two suits - O.S.No.201/2006 & O.S.No. 252/2006 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, North Paravoor. Both suits are disposed of by a common judgment by the Trial Court, and hence, both appeals are considered together.
2. The appellants in R.S.A No. 549 and 569 of 2011 are the same persons. They are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.201/2006 and the defendants in O.S.No. 252/2006. They are husband and wife.
3. The defendants in O.S.No.201/2006 are also husband and wife. The 1st defendant in O.S.No. 201/2006 is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 252/2006.
4. The parties are referred to according to their status in O.S.No.201/2006.
5. Plaint A Schedule property having an extent of 13.913 cents belonged to the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st defendant has Plaint B Schedule Property, which has an approximate extent of 47 cents, on the western side of Plaint A Schedule Property. Plaint B Schedule Property. O.S.No. 201/2006 is filed for declaration of right of way by easement by prescription and necessity over plaint C schedule pathway and consequential prohibitory injunction. Plaint C Schedule pathway is shown as having a width of 8 links and a length
Easement rights require clear identification and specific evidence; the absence of a proper survey plan undermines claims for easement by prescription.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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
