The need for precise pleadings and evidence in claims of easements based on implied grants under the Indian Easement Act.

1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law for determination in the second appeal preferred by the Appellant / Plaintiff.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the Appellant / Plaintiff.

3. The Appellant / Plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating inter alia that the Appellant / Plaintiff is registered under the provisions of the M.P. Society Registration Act, 1973 and running a school in the name of 'Radiant Way' since 1998 and for the entrance of school, the open land of Defendant No.1 is being used by the Plaintiff since 1998 and it was used by the Appellant / Plaintiff from 1998 to 2002 without any interference and without payment of fee till 2002. It was further pleaded that in the year 2002 Executive Council of Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University / Defendant passed a resolution to recover a sum of Ten Thousand Rupees per annum towards use of the suit pathway from the Appellant / Plaintiff which was communicated to the Plaintiff by memo dated 25-1-2003 and accordingly, the plaintiff has paid the said amount for using the suit pathway for the year 2002-03, 2003 - 04 and 2004-05. But, for the year 2005-06 and 2006-07, the amount of Twenty Thousand Rupees sent by the Appellant / Plaintiff to the Non - Applicants / Defendants was returned to the Appellant / Plaintiff without assigning any reason on 27-10-2006 and thereafter, on 29-6-2007, the Non - Appellants / Defendants started digging in the suit pathway in front of the school for constructing boundary wall leading to filing of suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

4. The Non - Applicants / Defendants filed their joint written statement stating inter alia that no such permission / leave has ever been granted by the Non - Applicants / Defendants to the Appellant / Plaintiff to use the pathway and Rupees Thirty Thousand paid by the Appellant / Plaintiff to the Non - Applicants / Defendants was towards damage to the road and electric pole owned by the Non - Applicants / Defendants. It was also pleaded that the Appellant / Plaintiff has alternative and actual way to approach the school as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.

5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove any agreement / contract with respect to the disputed suit pathway and the plaintiff has alternative way to approach the school through Mahoba Bazar Chowk to Damar Talab, Amanaka Police Station, Raipur.

6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the Appellant / Plaintiff preferred first appeal before the first appellate Court and the same was dismissed by the first appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree of trial Court against which this second appeal has been preferred.

7. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff, would submit that both the courts below are absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit by holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove any agreement / contract with respect to the suit pathway ignoring the plea based on S.8 of the Indian Easement Act . He would further submit that both the courts below have concurrently erred in holding that easement by implied grant has not been proved by the Appellant / Plaintiff by recording a finding which is perverse to the record and relied upon the decision of t