Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Dibakar Das – Appellant
Versus
Sriram Das – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of easementary rights claim (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants' response and objections (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. trial court's findings and decrees (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. substantial questions of law raised (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. burden of proof in easement cases (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. insufficiency of plaintiff's pleadings (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. outcome of the 2nd appeal (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment.
The respondent No.1 of this 2nd Appeal was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.308 of 1984 and he was the respondent No.1 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.20 of 1987.
The suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.308 of 1984 was a suit for declaration of easementary right of way over the suit Plot No.324 under Hal Khata No.135 in Mouza Badagaon under Balikuda Police Station in the District of Jagatsinghpur and for permanent injunction.
In the Hal Settlement, the suit Plot No.324 has been recorded in the name of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 with Kisam thereof as road. The suit Hal Plot No.324 corresponds to Sabik Plot Nos.124,125,126,128,129 & 130. In the year 1953. When dispute a
The claim for an easementary right of way requires proof of usage 'as of right' and acknowledgment of the opposing party's ownership in order to be valid under the Indian Easements Act, 1882.
The court established that an easementary right can be acquired through long-term, uninterrupted use, even if the specific phrase 'as of right' is not explicitly stated in the pleadings, provided the....
Easementary rights must be clearly established through evidence of grant or necessity, and a plaintiff must seek a declaration of such rights to challenge property alienation.
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 existence of an easement of necessity can be asserted if no alternative access exists, obligating the defendant to allow passage through their property.
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.
Establishment of easement rights requires explicit documentation, and mere permissive rights do not confer legal easements; plaintiffs failed to prove their claim.
Easementary rights must be evidenced by uninterrupted and peaceable enjoyment for twenty years, as per Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, to be enforceable.
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
