Back
R. SAKTHIVEL
K. Muthusamy – Appellant
Versus
P. Thangavel – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.Sakthivel, J.
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.5 of 2018 dated February 22, 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated February 14, 2018 made in O.S.No.66 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Udumalpet.
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated February 22, 2019 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2018 by the 'Subordinate Court, Udumalpet' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity] reversing the Judgment and Decree dated February 14, 2018 passed in O.S.No.66 of 2012 by the 'District Munsif, Udumalpet' ['Trial Court' for brevity].
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The Suit Properties and some other properties including those in Survey Nos.47 48, 49 and 50 of Pukkulum Village originally belonged to one Andimuthu Gounder, who had two children, namely daughter – Nagarathinam and son – Ramalingam. Andimuthu Gounder filed a Suit for partition in ‘O.S.No.250 of 1946 on the file of Trial Court’ [‘1946 Suit’ f
Easement rights granted through a final decree are permanent and cannot be extinguished by the existence of alternate pathways.
Denial of easementary rights - plaintiffs having failed to seek the relief of declaration of their alleged easementary right, on that score, the plaintiffs suit has to fail.
The court affirmed that plaintiffs possess easementary rights over a common Cart Track, while the defendants' claims of absolute ownership were unsupported by evidence.
The court affirmed that the plaintiffs possess a right of easement of necessity over a cart track essential for accessing their agricultural lands, with no evidence of alternative routes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear title and acceptable evidence to support claims of possession and easementary rights.
Easement rights can be established based on necessity even if prescriptive rights are not proved, provided there is evidence of long-standing usage.
The courts upheld the right of the plaintiffs to use the cart track as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, perfected by prescription and necessity.
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
