IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU
Shahulhameed, S/o. Alikunju – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Latheef, S/o. Mytheenkunju – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to survey commission for easement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. commission report amendments and contentions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments on necessity of survey commission. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. principles governing easement by prescription. (Para 9) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
K. BABU, J.
Additional defendant No.3 in a suit challenges the order issuing a Survey Commission to measure and identify a pathway over which the plaintiff claimed the right of easement by prescription in this proceeding.
2. The plaintiff instituted the original suit seeking a declaration of prescriptive easement right over the property scheduled as ‘C’ in the plaint. The plaintiff is the owner of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property, the dominant tenement. Defendants are the owners of plaint ‘B’ schedule property, the servient tenement. ‘C’ schedule property, the way, runs through the ‘B’ schedule property. It is averred that the way has a length of 36.8ms and width of 3ms.
3. At the time of institution of the suit, the plaintiff applied for a Commission. The Commissioner prepared Ext.P4 commission Report and rough sketch. Later, on the application of defendant No.1, the Commissi
Madhavan v. Narayanankutti and Others
Edakudi Raveendran @ Ravi and Others v. Lohithakshan and Another
Measurement for easement rights must be precise and based on pleadings, with survey commissions deemed unnecessary without genuine need.
A survey commission for measuring an easement is necessary only when pleadings genuinely require precise measurements; otherwise, it may cause unnecessary delays.
Easement rights require clear identification and specific evidence; the absence of a proper survey plan undermines claims for easement by prescription.
Prescriptive easement requires proof of uninterrupted use for 20 years; unclear evidence can lead to dismissal of claims.
The dismissal of an injunction suit cannot occur without proof of the defendant's claimed easement, and a plaintiff's established possession is paramount for granting relief.
Easement by prescription requires proof of continuous use for the statutory period; mere permissive use does not establish a right.
Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an easementary right over the claimed suit way, leading to dismissal of the suit.
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....
A claim of easement by prescription can prevail without the need for establishing easement by necessity, if supported by strong evidence.
The court affirmed that claims for easement by prescription require clear evidence of uninterrupted enjoyment for 30 years and that different causes of action can support distinct suits without invok....
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.