Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 62905
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sathish Ninan, J
BALAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
PRABHAVATHY – Respondent
RSA/996/2003
SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, SRI.G.SREEKUMAR CHELUR
A claimant of easement rights must present specific pleadings and identifiable property details to support their claims, as ambiguity hinders proper judicial determination.
Headnote:
Easement - Prohibitory Injunction - Kerala Land Reforms Act - Sections [79A(2)] - The court analyzed the easement rights claimed by the defendant based on historical ownership, the nature of property transfers, and statutory provisions allowing easement rights for kudikidappukaran, ultimately determining that further examination of the facts regarding the location and identification of properties was necessary for a proper legal determination.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a prohibitory injunction against the defendant's alleged easement right of way through their property. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, confirming his right, but the appellate court reversed this decision, leading to the present appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the claim of easement rights by the defendant lacks specific pleading, particularly regarding continuity of ownership and necessity. Furthermore, the exact properties involved need clearer identification to resolve the dispute adequately.
Issues: The main issues revolved around whether the pleadings satisfied the requirements for an easement of necessity or prescription and whether the evidence proved a way existed through the plaintiffs' property.
Ratio Decidendi: The ratio focuses on the necessity for clarity in claims for easement rights, requiring specific pleading and proof of continuity of ownership and the existence of no alternative means of access, alongside proper identification of property boundaries.
Final Decision: The appeals are allowed; previous judgments are set aside, and the suits are remanded for fresh disposition.
JUDGMENT
R.S.A No.996 of 2003 arises from O.S No.522 of 1992, and R.S.A No.998 of 2003 arises from O.S No.456 of 1992. O.S No.456 of 1992 is filed by one Prabhavathy and her husband as plaintiffs, against one Balakrishnan and others as defendants, for a prohibitory injunction against trespass into her property. O.S No.456 of 1992 is filed by Balakrishnan as plaintiff against Prabhavathy and her husband, claiming an easement right of way through the property of Prabhavathy. The trial court decreed O.S No.522 of 1992 declaring the easement right of way of Balakrishnan and dismissed O.S No.456 of 1992 filed by Prabhavathy. The decrees were reversed in appeal.
2. The property held by Balakrishnan has an extent of
10 cents. It was purchased by him from one Vasu under Ext B1 Sale Deed. Vasu had got the property as a 'kudikidappu' in the proceedings in O.A No.615 of 1970. Ext B3 is the Purchase Certificate in favour of Vasu. On its eastern side is the property held by Prabhavathy. A larger extent of property including the kudikidappu and the property held by Prabhavathy originally belonged to one Damodara Naikan. On the death of Damodara Naikan, his legal heirs executed Partition Deed No.333 of 1996. In the said partition, Sri.Venkiteswara Naikan and his sons got the properties involved in the suits. In O.A No.615 of 1970 under which Vasu obtained Ext B3 Purchase Certificate, Venkiteswara Naikan was the landlord. Venkiteswara Naikan expired on 24.01.1981. He had executed a Will in respect of his properties in favour of his sons - Viswanatha Naikan, Ramanatha Naikan and Gopinatha Naikan. Ext A5 is the subsequent Partition Deed of the year 1983 between the three sons. During the life time of Venkiteswara Naikan, he along with his sons executed Ext A1 Sale Deed in favour of Prabhavathy with regard to a portion of the property presently held by her. From out of the properties held by Venkiteswara Naikan, certain extent was outstanding on ‘panayam’. Under Ext A2, Prabhavathy purchased the said property from its holder. The said property forms part of the present holding of Prabhavathy. Based on Ext A5 partition, Viswanatha Naikan and Gopinatha Naikan, the two sons of Venkiteswara Naikan executed Exts A3 and A4 conveyances in favour of Prabhavathy with respect to portion of the present holding of Prabhavathy. On the eastern side of the property held by Prabhavathy under Exts A1 to A4, is a public road. Pending the suit, Prabhavathy purchased a strip of land under Ext A4 Sale Deed for access to the eastern public road from her holding under Exts. A1 to A4. Prabhavathy alleges that Balakrishnan is attempting to use a portion of her property as a way for access to the eastern public road and seeks for prohibitory injunction. Whereas, Balakrishnan claims that he has easement right of way through the property held by Prabhavathy for access to the eastern public way.
3. The trial court found that Balakrishnan has established that, he in continuation of his predecessor- Vasu, has easement right of way through the property presently held by Prabhavathy. Accordingly, O.S No.522 of 1992 was decreed and O.S No.456 of 1992 was dismissed. Prabhavathy carried the decrees in Appeal. The first appellate court reversed the decrees, dismissed O.S No.522 of 1992 and decreed O.S No.456 of 1992. The first appellate court found that there is no proper plea of easement. It is aggrieved thereby that these Regular Second Appeals have been filed.
4. Heard Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri G. Sreekumar Chelur on behalf of the respondents, on the following substantial questions of law.
(i) Do the pleadings satisfy the ingredients of a claim for easement of necessity or by prescription?
(ii) Do the Commissioners' reports in the suits prove the existence of a way through the property held by Prabhavathy?
(iii) If the property held by Prabhavathy include property belonging to non-sharers, could there be a plea of easement of necessity through the
