Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
Satheeshkumar S/o. Vasu – Appellant
Versus
Paul S/o. Cherur Vazhiyil Neelankavil Lazar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This regular second appeal has been filed under order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC” hereinafter) challenging the decree and judgment in A.S. No.40 of 2021 dated 19.09.2023 on the files of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Thrissur arose from decree and judgment in O.S. No.8256 of 2015 dated 30.03.2021 on the files of the Principal Munsiff Court, Thrissur. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the above suit.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the relevant materials and the verdicts under challenge.
3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as “plaintiff” and “defendant” with reference to their status before the trial court.
4. On hearing both sides this appeal stands admitted by formulating the following substantial questions of law:—
1. What are the essentials to establish right of easement by prescription as provided under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882?
2. Whether the trial court and the first Appellate Court justified in finding suppression of material fact as one among the reas
Right of easement by prescription – When a material fact is suppressed, same would disentitle relief of equitable or discretionary relief.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific pleadings and categorical evidence to establish the right of easement by prescription, as well as the essential ingred....
First appellate court's perverse denial of pathway existence and prescriptive easement set aside; trial decree restored on unimpeachable commissioners' reports, witness evidence proving 50+ years' op....
The right of easement by prescription requires proof of continuous use, which was established in this case despite the appellant's objections.
Establishment of easement rights requires explicit documentation, and mere permissive rights do not confer legal easements; plaintiffs failed to prove their claim.
For a second appeal to be maintainable, a substantial question of law must be formulated, as mandated by Section 100 of the CPC.
A claim of easement by prescription can prevail without the need for establishing easement by necessity, if supported by strong evidence.
A plaintiff must prove the existence of a claimed easement pathway with independent evidence to succeed in injunction claims.
Insufficient evidence led to the conclusion that statutory requirements for easement by prescription were not established.
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
