Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI
Sherly Thomas, W/o P.C. Thomas – Appellant
Versus
G. Jayachandran, S/o. Late Govinda Kaimal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. easement rights in a civil suit. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's authority to address commission reports. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments on necessity vs. prescription. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT :
T.R. Ravi, J.
Both these original petitions arise from O.S.No.128 of 2025 pending before the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner in O.P(C).No.1706 of 2025 is the plaintiff in the suit and the respondent is the defendant. The prayer in Ext.P1 suit is for a decree declaring that the plaintiff is having a right of easement by prescription over the plaint C schedule road for the enjoyment of plaint A schedule property and for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant or any person/persons claiming under him from causing any obstruction of any manner to the plaintiff in enjoying plaint C schedule road, from erecting fence/wall or placing any obstruction across plaint C schedule road. The plaintiff has admittedly purchased the property as per sale deed No.4410 of 2007 of S.R.O. Maradu. The property originally belonged to the Tharavadu of the father of the defendant as per a partition deed executed in 1990. The properties were allotted to the father of the defen
A party asserting an easement must substantiate their claim with usage records and circumstances distinguishing between necessity and prescription rights.
A plaintiff claiming a right of easement must demonstrate continuous, uninterrupted use for the statutory period to establish the claim, as per the Easements Act, 1882.
A valid claim for easement by grant requires proper identification of the property in relation to the original partition deed.
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....
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....
Prescriptive easement requires proof of 20-year uninterrupted open use; prior granted pathway claim undermines new assertion.
Easementary rights must be substantiated by clear evidence of continuous use, and title documents play a crucial role in determining such rights.
A claim of easement by prescription can prevail without the need for establishing easement by necessity, if supported by strong evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of an easementary right based on continuous usage and the partition deed, allowing for the grant of perpetual injunction even in....
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.
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
