Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.DHANABAL
Susila – Appellant
Versus
Palaniammal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appeal procedural context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. nature and history of contested cart track. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. key issues for determination in the trial. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments presented by appellants and respondents. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court’s analysis on easement rights. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and Judgment passed by the Sub Court, Attur in A.S.No.1 of 2012 dated 21.04.2015 wherein the respondents herein have preferred the said Appeal as against the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial court in O.S.No.199 of 1999 dated 29.08.2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Attur. The said appeal was dismissed by confirming the decree and Judgment passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, this Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants / defendants.
3. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-
(ii) In fact, initially, the property in Survey Nos.122/4, 122/3 and 122/8 totalling an extent of 2.89 acres were purchased by one Vellaiyappa udayar through sale deed 13.08.1946 from Thoppaiya pillai son of Muthu Pillai. After demise of Vellaiy
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 can be established based on necessity even if prescriptive rights are not proved, provided there is evidence of long-standing usage.
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 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.
The court determined that easementary rights granted in a sale deed are valid and enforceable, overruling lower court findings based on misinterpretation of evidence.
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
