High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA
Natesa Gounder
Versus
Raja Gounder & Others
S.A.No.117 of 2004
Decided On : 01-10-2012
Easement of Necessity - Property Dispute - Section 13, Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 - The court analyzed the concept of easement of necessity and implied grant in the context of a property dispute. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court were confirmed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree to declare their right and title to the use and enjoyment of a cart-track and to grant injunction against the defendants from obstructing the use of the track. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It considered the concept of easement of necessity and implied grant in the context of the case. The court found that the first appellate court correctly considered the case and held that the plaintiff could not claim any easement over the defendants' property. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the first appellate court's judgment and decree.
Issues: The issues included the binding effect of certain documents on the defendants, the applicability of the concept of easement of necessity, and the adherence to procedural rules by the first appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the concept of easement by necessity or implied grant was not applicable in the case. It also found that there was no perversity or illegality in the judgment and decree of the first appellate court.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court.
This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2002 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari in A.S.No.65 of 1998 in reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.06.98 passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruchengode in O.S.No.589 of 1998.
2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:
a] The appellant herein, who happened to be the plaintiff, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:
To pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants and their men -
a) declaring the plaintiff's right and title to the user and enjoyment of the suit cart-track in S.No.18/3-A/1 and S.No.18/3-A-2 and
b) to grant permanent injunction against the defendants and their men by restraining them from in any way obstructing or disturbing the user and enjoyment of the red coloured portion cart-track in S.No.18/3-A-2 by obliterating the same and;
*b) (i) grant mandatory injunction against the defendants and their men and thereby direct them to restore the suit cart-track which was obliterated in S.No.18/3-A-2* and for costs.
*plaint amended as per order in I.A.1296/91 which was dismissed on 17.10.94 and the order of dismissal was revised and the amendment was allowed as per the order in CRP No.80/95 dt.30.10.96 by High Court of Judicature at Madras.*
(extracted as such)
b] Whereas the defendants filed the written statement, challenging and impugning the averments as found set out in the plaint.
c] The trial court framed the relevant issues.
d] During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Ex.A1 to A3. On the defendants' side D2-Krishnan examined himself as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B16 and court documents Exs.C1 and C2 were also marked.
e) Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit.
f) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants 1 and 2 filed the appeal. Whereupon, the appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the original suit.
g] Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal on various grounds and also suggesting certain substantial questions of law.
5. My learned predecessor framed the following substantial question of law:
"In the face of the recitals in A2 and A3 which expressly grants a right of way over the suit property to reach the Natham land situated in Survey No.22, has not the lower appellate court committed error of law in non-suiting the plaintiff on the ground of availability of an alternate way"?
(extracted as such)
6. After hearing both sides, this court thought it fit to re-formulate the substantial questions of law to the knowledge of both sides.
1. In the absence of defendants 1 and 2 or their ancestors, being parties to Exs.A2 and A3, whether any right of pathway contemplated therein would be binding on D1 and D2?
2. Whether the survey record Ex.B5 emerged in favour of the plaintiff, which was subsequently sought to be challenged could be used in favour of the plaintiff to assert his right?
3. Whether the concept "easement of necessity by implied grant" is applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case?
4. Whether the first appellate court as contended by the plaintiff failed to adhere to Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC in disposing of the appeal?
5. Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgment and decree of both the courts below?
7. Both sides advanced their arguments on the substantial questions of law framed by me.
8. All these points are taken together for discussion as they are inter-linked and interwoven, inter-connected and entwined with one an
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.