The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the grant of easement can be inferred based on evidence of continuous use, but in the absence of such evidence, the grant cannot be established. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of the timing of the creation of rights in or over the same immovable property, as per the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree 28.04.2009 made in A.S.No.82 of 2007 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2007 made in O.S.No.353 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.)

1. Aggrieved over the reversal finding of the First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief fact, leading to file this Second Appeal, reads as follows:-

The plaintiffs are the husband and wife. The A schedule property originally belonged to one George Abraham, son of M.D. Abraham as per the gift deeds executed in his favour. The said George Abraham sold the property to one P.J. Prasanna Kumari, wife of Sri Kumar. The first plaintiff has purchased the property from the said P.J. Prasanna Kumari. The said George Abraham originally sold the property along with right over the B schedule property namely, pathway. Therefore, the plaintiffs became entitled to use the pathway, which is shown as B schedule property. The B schedule pathway has been provided for the personal and vehicular moment of the vendees. It is the further contention that the original owner namely, M.D.Abraham in his Will dated 16.09.1988 has also stated that the B schedule pathway could be used for the benefit of all owners. The suit property form part of “Moolamannil Estate”. Therefore, the plaintiffs ever since the date of purchase are enjoying the B schedule property as a motor able road for gaining access to the plaint A schedule property. Besides, they also got right over the B schedule property by way of easement of necessity. The defendant has purchased the shares of other sons of original owner M.D.Abraham and his wife. Subject to the right of pathway over the B schedule property of the plaintiffs, the defendant has no right to make any exclusive absolute right over the B schedule property. The B schedule pathway has been provided for the beneficial enjoyment of the respective shares of the original sharers and their assignees. Without the plaint B schedule property, A schedule properties cannot be beneficially enjoyed and the same will be rendered isolated and made unfit. With the ulterior motive of annexing the plaint A schedule properties with the remaining properties, the defendant made demands to the plaintiffs and their predecessor in title for the sale of the same to him. As the same has not been done, the defendant is trying to make attempt to obstruct the plaintiffs' personal and vehicular moment through the plaint B schedule property. At the entrance of the plaint B schedule property pathway on A and B as shown in the plan filed with the plaint, there is a gate with iron doors, provided by the original owners, so as to bar the entry of outsiders and strangers. Now, the defendant is trying to lock the entrance gate, so as to prevent the plaintiffs from entering through the gate. Such attempt is also made by the defendant on 24.10.2006. Hence, the suit for declaration, declaring that the plaintiffs have right to use the plaint B schedule property as a motor able pathway to the plaint A schedule property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from anyway closing and blocking the user of the plaint B schedule property as pathway.

4. Denying the allegations, it is the contention of the defendant that the sale deed in favour of Prasannakumari and her husband Srikumar did not convey any right of pathway on the B schedule property. In the absence of any grant in the suit property, George Abraham nor Prasannakumari or Srikumar have no right to convey the property. The schedule of property, description of property and other particulars of A and B schedule property are wrong and misleading. It is the contention of the defendant that an imaginary pathway is being mentioned to create a rig