Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Sohan Lal and Others -Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar -Respondent
Second Appeal No. 271 of 2010
Decided On : 24-05-2013
Easementary Rights - Property Dispute - Indian Easements Act, 1882, Section 15 - The court discussed the applicability of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 in relation to the suit for easementary rights. It also considered the registration requirement under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the nature of the documents presented as evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of disputed property and sought injunction against the defendants from interfering with the use of certain land and a door. The defendants contested the claim, leading to a dispute over easementary rights and property ownership.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the document dated 25.08.1958 created a right of passage and was not required to be registered, but the document dated 18.05.1989 did not transfer any property rights and was admissible as evidence of actions already taken. The court held that the suit for easementary rights was barred by Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.
Issues: The issues included the plaintiff's right to use certain land, the construction of a wall by the defendants, and any construction work undertaken by the defendants during the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the documents presented as evidence, the applicability of registration requirements, and the impact of actions already taken on the suit for easementary rights.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, leading to the dismissal of the original suit.
Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent.
2. The substantial questions of law formulated in this appeal are:
"(1) Whether suit in question for easementary rights was barred by Section 15 of Indian Easements Act, 1882?
(2) Whether, the document dated 25.8.1958 (Paper No. 86-A) creates any right, title or interest and was, therefore, required registration, and, in absence of its registration, was inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, findings of Courts below are wholly illegal and perverse?
(3) Whether the document dated 25.08.1958 (Paper No. 86-A) creates a license or a right of easement and the same is revocable by Smt. Kasturi Devi?
(4) Whether Smt. Kasturi Devi had a right to abandon the right of easement and close her door and by executing document dated 18.05.1989 (Paper No. 128-A) withouth any consent of her daughters and the findings in this regard by the Courts below are wholly illegal?"
3. The plaint case set up was that plaintiff is the owner of property shown by words "DEFG" shown at the bottom of plaint (hereinafter referred to as the "disputed property") which was purchased by plaintiff vide three sale deeds dated 19.06.1989, 20.07.1989 and 12.05.1992. The house of Sri Khacheru Mal, father of plaintiff is in the south of disputed property. On the north-west side there is a common Sahan shown as "ABCD" wherein door of plaintiff's house open and plaintiff keeps his egress and ingress through said door. The aforesaid house is there for the last 50 years at the time of filing of suit, as also the door and the same used to be enjoyed for egress and ingress as a matter of right using the portion "JKLDA" as a common passage. Earlier, on the land "ABCD" their existed a door of Ram Gopal. The aforesaid land originally belong to Sri Lalman son of Sri Behari Lal. Both executed an agreement on 25.08.1959 wherein the land "ABCD" was decided to be used as Sahan by Ram Gopal and for his egress and ingress to his house. Land to the east of "ABCD" was given to Lalman in lieu of aforesaid Sahan. Lalman constructed his Abadi to the west of "ABCD" and Sahan and to be used by Ram Gopal. There was a Naali also from the house, opening in the Sahan. The defendants, however, started threatening plaintiff to close the door and also threatened to raise construction over Sahan, "ABCD", though they had no such right and hence plaintiff instituted suit claiming permanent injunction against defendants restraining them from interfering in using land "ABCD" as Sahan, and land "JKLDA" as Rasta, closing the door "DM" as shown in the map or by closing Naali or raising any construction over "ABCD" in any manner. A mandatory injunction also sought directing the defendants to remove wall placed by them at "DN" and to remove tubewell from the land "ABCD" within the time, as directed by this Court and also to remove the handpump or construction raised on "ABCD" and "JKLDA".
4. The suit was contested by defendants by filing written statement and additional written statement denying such right as asserted by plaintiff over the land in dispute.
5. The plaintiff filed documents, namely agreement dated 25.08.1958 as paper No. 86-A and defendants filed document dated 18.05.1989 as paper No. 128-A in support of his claim.
6. The Trial Court formulated seven issues but for the purpose of present case, issues 1, 2 and 6 are relevant and read as under:
^^1& D;k oknh dks dksbZ vf/kdkj Hkwfe ,0ch0lh0Mh0 o ts0ds0,y0Mh0,0 tSlk uD'kk okni= esa vafdr gS dks crkSj jkLrk ;k ukyh iz;ksx djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gS\
2& D;k izfroknh us nhokj Mh0,e0 nkSjku okn fcuk vf/kdkj yxk yh gSA ;fn gkW rks izHkko\
6& D;k nkSjku okn izfroknh us fookfnr Hkwfe ij dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k gS ;fn gka rks mldk izHkko\^^
"1. Whether the Plaintiff has right to use land shown as ABCD and JKLDA in the sitemap of the plaint as path or drain.
2. Whether the Defendant has without having any right erected any wall m
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
