Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.RAJASEKAR
Padma – Appellant
Versus
Manickam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the concurrent Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court, rejecting the suit for relief of declaration and injunction filed by the appellant herein.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their ranking in the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff had purchased the land situated in the Southern side of the defendants' land from the defendants' vendor, as per Sale deed dated 18.02.1987. In the Sale deed, the plaintiff’s vendor has granted permission to use the cart track situated on the Western side corner of the defendant's land, to reach their land shown as A, B, C, D in the Rough Plan. This cart track was being used by the plaintiff for more than 40 years. The first defendant now entered in to an Agreement of Sale with the second defendant. Due to previous enmity, on instigation of defendant No.2, defendant No.1 started preventing the plaintiff from using the cart track. The plaintiff further stated in the plaint that he is having a right based on easementary right of necessity and prescription thereby, filed the suit praying for declaration that he is
The court determined that easementary rights granted in a sale deed are valid and enforceable, overruling lower court findings based on misinterpretation of evidence.
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.
The right to establish an easement by prescription requires uninterrupted use for twenty years, which the plaintiff failed to demonstrate.
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 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.
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.
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
