Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, JOHNSON JOHN, JJ
CHIRAKKAL SANKARAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
PONGUZHI PARAMBATH SREEDHARAN NAIR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. this appeal reviews the correctness of prescriptive easement claims over paddy field ridges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. courts note the presumption of permissive use regarding agricultural access. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. the absence of specific evidence undermines the prescriptive easement claim. (Para 12 , 21) |
| 4. doubts about easement specificity affected the plaintiff's claims. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. final ruling dismisses the appeal due to insufficient proof of entitlement. (Para 19 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
This second appeal is before us on a reference. The question posed essentially is, “Is it an invariable rule that a prescriptive easement right of way cannot be claimed over ridges of paddy fields?”
2. The reference order doubts the correctness of the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Thottathil Thamasikkum Cherootty alias Balan v. Puliyaratharayil Velayudhan Nair (AIR 1998 Kerala 164). Therein this Court held, “It is a common feature in Indian villages that people generally pass over the ridges between two paddy fields. Their right of way can only be permissive”.
3. We have heard learned counsel Sri.K.P.Sudheer the learned counsel for the appellants and
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
