IMPORTANT POINT
A party claiming an easement must provide clear evidence of long-standing use, and failure to do so can result in dismissal of the claim.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Priyadarsini, J.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2023 in O.S.No.75 of 2017 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Agent to Government (District Collector) at Mahaboobabad (hereinafter will be referred as ‘trial Court’), the plaintiffs preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the appellants to file the present appeal, are as follows :

(a) The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.75 of 2017 against defendants seeking perpetual injunction in respect of path way in the agricultural land of the plaintiffs and defendants situated at Satyanarayanapuram Village, Bayyaram Mandal of Mahabubabad District. The brief averments of the plaint are as under:

(i) Plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural lands i.e., Ac.0.19 guntas in Sy.Nos.251/1-AA and 250/3-AA pertaining to plaintiff No.1, Ac.0.26 guntas in Sy.No.251/EE pertaining to the plaintiff No.2, Ac.0.19 guntas in Sy.No.250/3-EE pertaining to the plaintiff No.3, Ac.0.26 guntas in Sy.No.151/1-U pertaining to Plaintiff No.4, Ac.4.18 guntas in Sy.No.252/2/6 pertaining to the plaintiff No.5, Ac.4.18 guntas in Sy.No.252/2/AA pertaining to the plaintiff No.6 and Ac.3.27 guntas in Sy.No.255/2/A/1 pertaining to the plaintiff No.7.

(ii) Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land adjacent to the agricultural lands of plaintiffs. The lands of plaintiff and defendant came into their possession from their forefathers and the names of the plaintiffs and defendants are entered in the revenue records. Plaintiffs and defendants are paying the land revenue to the Government. Since about 70 years i.e., during the lifetime of the forefathers of the plaintiffs and the defendants, there is path way existing in between the land of plaintiff No.7 and defendant and the said pathway leads in between the lands and that ends in Aligeru Vagu. The pathway is being used by plaintiffs and other farmers to reach their lands in doing their agricultural operations by raising paddy and other commercial crops without any interruption.

(c) About two years back, the defendant obstructed the plaintiffs to enter into their lands to do their agricultural operations and constructed a gate closing the pathway. The plaintiffs reported the same to the elders in the village and they held a panchayath and advised the defendant not to obstruct the plaintiffs to go their agricultural fields in attending the agricultural operations through the existing pathway but the defendants did not list to the advises of the village elders and obstructing the plaintiffs in attending to their agricultural operations from the existing pathway. After the said panchayath, in the month of August, 2016, the defendants lodged a report against all the plaintiffs before SHO, Garla Police Station. After receiving the complaint, the SHO, Garla Police Station came to the disputed pathway and observed that the pathway is existing since long time and all the farmers are using the way in attending their agricultural operations and also to transport the agricultural material with the help of bullock carts, tractors and lorries. As per the advice of the SHO, PS Garla, the defendant allowed the plaintiffs in attending their agricultural operations. But in the agricultural season, the defendant again closed the gate and put a lock to the said gate and did not allow the plaintiffs in attending to their agricultural operations.

(iii) On 10.07.2017 when all the plaintiffs proceedings to their agricultural fields through the pathway, the defendant and their men obstructed the plaintiffs and not permitted them to allow in to the said pathway. However, at the inference of the surrounding land owners, the defendant permitted the plaintiffs to enter into their lands. Again