Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Palaniappa Gounder (deceased) & Others - Appellant
Versus
Pongianna Gounder (deceased) & Others - Respondent
S.A. Nos. 1994 & 1995 of 1999
Decided On : 21-12-2020
For the Appellant :Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel, P. Kannakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V. Anand, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of the legal provisions related to easementary rights, prescription, and necessity, as well as the assessment of the admissibility and evidentiary value of documents.
Headnote:
Easementary Right - Property Dispute - Indian Evidence Act, Section 77, 78 - The judgment discusses the legal provisions related to easementary rights, prescription, and necessity. The court analyzed the evidence presented, including sale deeds and revenue documents, to establish the existence of a cart track and the right of easement. The court also considered the admissibility and evidentiary value of documents, such as Ex.A-5, in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over a cart track in two separate suits - one for declaration and perpetual injunction and the other for permanent injunction. The trial court initially delivered a common judgment, which was challenged in the appellate court. The appellants claimed exclusive ownership of the cart track, while the respondents asserted their right of easement by prescription and necessity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had proved both easement of necessity and easement by prescription. It also determined that the sale deed and revenue documents indicated the existence of the cart track and the right of easement enjoyed by the respondents. The court dismissed the second appeals, affirming the lower court's decision.
Issues: The issues included the grant of relief of easement of necessity without specific pleadings, the establishment of easement by prescription, and the admissibility of documents such as Ex.A-5.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents had proved both easement of necessity and easement by prescription, based on the evidence presented. It also determined that the sale deed and revenue documents indicated the right of easement enjoyed by the respondents. Additionally, the court found that Ex.A-5, while admissible, had minimal evidentiary value due to lack of proper proof of its content.
Final Decision: The second appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in S.A.No.1994 of 1999:Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.1999 made in A.S.no.245 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Erode reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1998, made in O.S.No.630 of 1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court(Civil Judge-Junior Division), Erode.
S.A.No.1995 of 1999: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.1999 made in A.S.No.246 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Erode, reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1998 made in O.S.No.1025/1990 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court (Civil Judge, Junior Division), Erode.)
(The case has been heard through video conference)
1. The chequered journey of the present litigation between the parties in these two second appeals is capsulated as under:-
O.S.No.1025/1990 was filed by one Sengottaian and 5 others against Palaniappa Gounder, his wife and two sons for declaration and perpectual injunction in respect of a cart track. As per the plaint in this suit, the said cart track is in R.S.F.No.50/2 of Thindal Village and they have right to take carts, cattle and men from Erode-Perunduarai Main Road through this cart track to their land in R.S.F.No.49. The plaintiffs’ land is on the R.S.F.No.49. The said land is on the immediate East of the land in possession and enjoyment of the defendants in R.S.F.No.50. Immediate West of R.S.F.50, the Erode- Perundurai Road runs North South. From the said road, the access to the plaintiffs land in S.No.49, they have to come through the cart track in S.No.50/2. The said right has been enjoyed by the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title for the past 100 years. Suddenly, the defendants trying to block the cart track pathway at the point, where it enters R.S.F.No.49. The suit to declare their right of easement by prescription.
2. O.S.No.630/1991 was filed by Palaniappa Gounder against one Pongianna Gounder and 8 others. The plaintiffs in O.S.1025/1990 are made all defendants in this suit. This suit is for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the ‘ABCD’ marked portion of the property in R.S.F.No. 50/2 of Tindal Village. As per the plaint in this suit, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property in R.S.F.No. 50/2. The suit property and the adjoining property on the western side in S.F.No.50/4 was purchased by the plaintiff’s father in the year 1941. On the East of the suit property is the compound wall of the third party. The Western side of the plaintiff’s property touch the Erode-Perundurai Road. On the further south, the plaintiff’s house is under construction. To sell his land in S.No.50/4 as house sites, he has left the suit property as cart track to reach his southern side portion. The said cart track portion is marked as ‘ABCD’ in the rough plan filed along with the plaint. The defendants got no right in the said cart track. For their land in R.S.F.No.49, they have easy access from the southern side of their land through Sakthi Nagar. To avoid circuitous route and to have access to Perundurai Road from North, which will enhance the price of the plots promoted, the defendants on 30/04/1991 attempt to make a cart track to link their land with ‘CD’ marked portion. The said attempt was thwarted.
3. After trial, a common judgment in these two suits was delivered on 24/03/1997. The suit in O.S.No.1025/1990 was allowed and the suit in O.S.No.630/1991 was dismissed. The said common judgment was challenged before the Sub-Court, Erode in A.S. Nos.182/1997 and 183 of 1997 respectively. The appellate Court remanded the suits back for re-trial. Accordingly, the trial Court conducted re-trial and received additional documents, examined additional witnesses and rendered its common judgment on 25/11/1998
