Easement rights under the Indian Easements Act require proof of continuous use and previous single ownership; failure to establish these elements results in dismissal of claims.

JUDGMENT :

(R. SAKTHIVEL, J.)

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated August 19, 2019 passed in A.S.No.27 of 2018 by the 'Sub Court, Tittakudi' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated March 28, 2018 passed in O.S.No.82 of 2012 by the ‘Additional District Munsif, Tittakudi' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was confirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. The plaintiff has filed the Original Suit seeking easementary rights for a pathway. Suit first schedule comprises of two items, which are strips of land. The first item thereof is an extent of 0.09.5 Hectares (9.5 Ares) situate in Survey No.89/16A on the north and the second item thereof is an extent of 0.02.5 Hectares (2.5Ares) situate in Survey No.90/3 on the South, right below the first item. The first item was originally owned by one Muthukrishna Reddiar's son - Narayanasamy Reddiar, who along with his wife and children, sold the same to the plaintiff on February 24, 1996 and the second item belonged to Kandhasamy Naicker who sold the same to the plaintiff on October 4, 1996. The Suit second schedule property lies on the southern side of the first schedule properties. Abutting the southern boundary of the Suit second schedule property, there exist an East-West Highway Road for about 100 years. Case of the plaintiff is that the Suit second schedule property is a pathway to access the first schedule properties from the East- West Highway and the plaintiff and her vendor have been using the same as such for agricultural and transport purposes for more than 100 years, thereby gaining a right of easement of necessity. However, the defendants have encroached upon the Suit second schedule property and constructed a wall thereon on May 1, 2012. Since the defendants may complete the construction before legal proceedings, the plaintiff requests an exemption from the mandatory notice under Section 80 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 . Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the Suit for declaration of plaintiff’s right over the Suit second schedule property and mandatory injunction to remove the compound wall as well.

DEFENDANT'S CASE

4. The first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the second defendant. The defendants completely denied all claims made by the plaintiff. The defendants asserted that the second schedule of properties belongs to the Government as Natham land and was allocated to the second defendant, who then proceeded to construct a compound wall thereon. According to the defendants, the Suit filed by the plaintiff is based on false claims intended to interfere with Government actions. The plaintiff can enjoy but cannot claim right over the Government lands. Therefore, they seek dismissal of the Suit with costs.

TRIAL COURT

5. At trial, plaintiff's husband by name Vivekanandar was examined as P.W.1 and one Chelladurai was examined as P.W.2 and Ex- A.1 to Ex-A.10 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. One Samikannu, Special Tahsildar was examined as D.W.1 and one Rathinavathi, Special Tahsildar was examined as D.W.2 and Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.4 were marked on the side of the defendants. Advocate Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Ex-C.1 and Ex-C.2.

6. After full-fledged trial, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the Suit second schedule property was used as a pathway by the plaintiff and her predecessors in title. Accordingly, i