Back
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Mansha Ram Payal & Anr. — Appellant
versus
Dr. Ved Prakash (since deceased) & Ors. — Respondent
Appeal No.858 of 2001 (Old No.2084 of 1988),
Decided on : 28-07-2009.
(B) Indian Easements Act, 1882, Section 15 - Right of easement - Acquisition – Mode of - Can be acquired by way of prescription - Right of way or any other easement can be acquired by way of prescription – Must be proved to have been used peaceably, openly, as of right, without interruption, for 20 years, by the dominant owner – Right to way – Cannot be equated with right to pass water.
Facts of the case :
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted Suit No.145 of 1983, before the trial court, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants, not to interfere plaintiffs user over the hind shown by letters E,A,D,C,B,F in the plaint map, as pathway. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that his (plaintiff’s) house is situated in Sewak Ashram Road, Dehradun. On the south of plaintiff’s house there is 19 ft. wide land, used as pathway. It is further pleaded that plaintiff has laid his sewer line over the disputed land. Said land is being used by the plaintiff and his tenants since 1960, peacefully, openly and without interruption. It is alleged by the plaintiff that defendants want to close the disputed land by raising constructions over it. On this cause of action, the suit was instituted.
Finding of the court :
Had it been a simple case acquiring right of passage, this Court could have refused to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court, though non-concurrent. But the first appellate court has committed grave error of law by decreeing the suit for use of the disputed land by the plaintiff after discussing that the plaintiff had laid the sewer line over the disputed land. No easementary right accrues to the plaintiff to lay sewer line on the land of another person and discharge sewer water through it. No permanent construction made by the plaintiff over the land of another person can be indirectly declared lawful under the garb of easementary right of passage.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. —
This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.1988, passed by first appellate court (Second Additional District Judge, Dehradun), in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1984, whereby said court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 04.12.1984, passed by the trial court (Munsif-III, Dehradun), in Suit No. 145 of 1983, and decreed the plaintiff’s suit.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Lower Court Record.
3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted Suit No.145 of 1983, before the trial court, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants, not to interfere plaintiffs user over the hind shown by letters E,A,D,C,B,F in the plaint map, as pathway. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that his (plaintiff’s) house is situated in Sewak Ashram Road, Dehradun. On the south of plaintiff’s house there is 19 ft. wide land, used as pathway. It is further pleaded that plaintiff has laid his sewer line over the disputed land. Said land is being used by the plaintiff and his tenants since 1960, peacefully, openly and without interruption. It is alleged by the plaintiff that defendants want to close the disputed land by raising constructions over it. On this cause of action, the suit was instituted.
4. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement but later did not contest the suit and suit proceeded ex parte against him. Defendants No.2 and 4 filed their written statements stating that they have no concern with the disputed land and pleaded that they are impleaded as unnecessary party. It was only defendant No.3 Mansha Ram Payal who contested the suit before the trial court and filed his written statement stating that though the plaintiff is owner of house known as Raghunath Bhawan, 29 Sewak Ashram Road, Dehradun, but the land adjoining to it on southern side is not a Rasta land, as alleged by the plaintiff. It is stated that the contesting defendant No.3 purchased the land through registered sale deed dated 13.06.1983, executed by Smt.Manorma Gupta (Defendant No.1). Defendant No. 1 had purchased it earlier from the original owner Khairati Lal Bali through registered sale deed dated 18.09.1957. It is pleaded by the contesting defendant that the land is in possession of the contesting defendant as an owner and he has every right to construct the boundary wall. It is denied that the plaintiff has acquired any easementary right to use the disputed land as pathway, as alleged by him.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the trial court:-
(i) Whether defendant No.2 is unnecessary party in the suit, as alleged in the written statement?
(ii) Whether plaintiff has easementary right over the disputed passage shown by letters E,A,D,C,B,F in the plaint map?
(iii) Whether there exists any passage on the spot as shown by letters E,A,D,C,B,F in the plaint map?
(iv) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?
The trial court after recording evidence and hearing the parties found that it is not proved on the record that the plaintiff had been using the disputed land as Rasta land for more than 20 years peacefully and openly as required under Section 15 of Indian Easements Act, 1882, and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 04.12.1984, passed by the trial court (Munsif-III, Dehradun), Civil Appeal No.45 of 1984 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1. Learned Second Additional District Judge, Dehradun, who heard said appeal, allowed it and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence this second appeal was filed by the defendants No.3 and 4 before Allahabad High Court on 14.10.1988, where it was admitted on following question of law:-
Whether the easementary right accrues to the plaintiff to discharge the dirty water (sewage) of his house on other person’s land?
The appeal is received by transfer under Section 35 of U.P.
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
