Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67566
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mrs.Justice K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J
Koundiammal – Appellant
Versus
Marappan – Respondent
S.A.No.1087 of 2019|C.M.P. No.23666 of 2019|A.S. No.16 of 2018|O.S. No.325 of 2004
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.A. Shagul Hameed
For the Respondents: Mr.A. Sundaravadhanan
The plaintiff failed to prove easement by prescription as required under Sections 4 and 12 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882, leading to the reversal of the appellate court's decree.
Headnote:(A) Indian Easement Act, 1882 - Sections 4 and 12 - Second Appeal challenging decree granting easement by prescription - Plaintiff sought declaration of right to BC pathway - Trial court dismissed; appellate court reversed - Court held necessary proof for easement by prescription was not established by the plaintiff. (Paras 8, 12, 12.1)
(B) Appellate Review - An appellate court's decision must not be founded on a misunderstanding of law or misapprehension of facts - The absence of evidence of easement undermines the first appellate court's decree. (Paras 12.1, 12.2)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed easement by prescription over BC pathway to reach his land, asserting long usage, while defendants denied any such pathway's existence or easement rights. On dismissal by trial court, the plaintiff appealed, leading to a contested judge's ruling favoring the plaintiff, which was later questioned.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court's ruling granting rights based on erroneous conclusions and lack of substantial evidence contravened established legal standards.
Issues: The key issue was whether the plaintiff proved his easement by prescription to access his land via the claimed pathway.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the absence of essential evidence, such as title documents, made the claim for easement unsustainable, requiring thorough proof for establishing rights.
Result: The Second Appeal is allowed, reversing the appellate court's decision.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdictional facts of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions regarding the existence and access of the pathway (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's evaluation of the claims and arguments presented (Para 6 , 12) |
| 4. substantial question of law regarding easement by prescription (Para 8) |
| 5. final court analysis on the easement claim (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. conclusion and order of the court (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
In this Second Appeal, challenge is made to the decree and judgment dated 26.03.2019 passed in A.S. No.16 of 2018, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Paramathy, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 02.06.2014 passed in O.S. No.325 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy.
2. The defendants in O.S. No.325 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, are the appellants in the present appeal. The plaintiff filed the above suit for
(i) declaration to declare his right in BC pathway,
(ii) for consequential injunction restraining the defendant 1 to 7 from preventing the plaintiff from enjoying the above pathway and,
(iii) for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 to 7 to remove the iron fence put up in BC pathway.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.
4. The case of the plaintiff was that the land in survey number 6/1 of Perunguruchi Village, Paramathy Village Taluk, is the absolute property of the 1st defendant and there exists BC pathway for more than 30 years. The plaintiff and their predecessor in title are using the said pathway to reach their land from "Oormandai" by way of easement by prescription. The further contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is using the alleged BC pathway to reach his lands shown as P1 to P3 in the plaint plan. The defendants had requested the plaintiff to sell his property to them and since the same was refused by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant erected barbed wire fencing in his land thereby preventing the plaintiff from reaching his land through the said pathway. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for the reliefs as stated above.
5. On the other hand, the 1st defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by stating that there is no such pathway as mentioned in the plaint plan. It is submitted that the house of the plaintiff is situate in survey number 6/3 and from the front yard of his house, his land starts and hence, there is no necessity to the plaintiff to enter into the land of the 1st defendant in survey number 6/1. Only with a view to harass the defendants, the plaintiff is claiming noval right of pathway over the land of the 1st defendant in survey number 6/1. His further submission is that on the northern eastern portion of survey number 6/1, there exists a 'parai' known as 'kalaparai' and when the survey number 6/1 was owned by various persons, the said 'kalaparai' was used as kalam. To reach the said 'parai', there was a pathway in the southern side of survey number 6/1 which was upto the end of eastern side of survey number 6/1 and turns towards north and reach the said 'parai'. When the 1st defendant purchased the entire land, there is no necessity for others to use the said 'kalaparai' and hence the use of the said pathway by others has been extinguished for the past 30 years. The said pathway was used only to reach the said 'kalaparai' and not to reach the lands of the plaintiff. Hence, there is no question of easement by prescription to the plaintiff to use the alleged suit pathway.
5.1. The 7th defendant in his written statement submitted that no such pathway exists to the south of the 7th defendant land. Though the plaintiff claims 15 feet width pathway in the lands of the defendants, however, the same is not properly described in the suit schedule. The plaintiff in para-7 of the plaint has stated that the said pathway runs in between the lands of the plaintiff and the defendants, where as, in para- 10 it
