Back
R. SAKTHIVEL
G. Kamaraj – Appellant
Versus
K. Govindarajan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
Prayer in S.A. No. 62 of 2019: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated December 14, 2017, made in A.S. No. 4 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Rasipuram, setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated January 19, 2017 made in O.S. No. 78 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram.
Prayer in CMP No. 1288 of 2019: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to grant an Order of stay of the Judgment and Decree dated December 14, 2017 made in A.S. No. 4 of 2017 in O.S. No. 78 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Rasipuram.
Prayer in CMP No. 18227 of 2024 : Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to receive the document viz. ‘Pathway Agreement dated July 25, 2020 registered before Sub Registrar, Rasipuram as Document No. 2965 of 2020’ in this appeal as additional evidence.
1. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated December 14, 2017 passed in A.S. No. 4 of 2017 by the ‘Sub Court Rasipuram’ [henceforth ‘First Appellate Court
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.
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.
Easement rights can be established based on necessity even if prescriptive rights are not proved, provided there is evidence of long-standing usage.
The limitations of interference under Sec. 100 of CPC and the requirement of substantial question of law for second appeal.
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
