Easement rights established by deed do not require separate declaration for injunction.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 5.08.2024 made in A.S.No.24 of 2017 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 13.10.2017 passed in O.S.No.264 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode.

2.The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the Original Suit.

3.The appellants are the defendants. The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful use and enjoyment of the cart track marked as ABCDEF, leading to their lands situated in S.No.313/2.

4.According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties originally belonged to their common ancestor Ramaiah Gounder, whose sons effected a registered Partition Deed dated 16.08.1955 in Document No.1908/1955. Under the said partition, the plaintiffs were allotted "A" Schedule properties, and the defendants were allotted "B" Schedule properties, with a specific cart track right of 5 cubits width granted to the plaintiffs over the defendants' land. It was the further case of the plaintiffs that they have no other access to their lands except through the suit cart track and that the defendants, with an intention to disturb their lawful right, attempted to obstruct the same in April 2012 and again on 14.09.2012, compelling them to file the suit.

5.The defendants denied the existence of any cart track on ground and contended that no such right was ever enjoyed by the plaintiffs. According to them, the plaintiffs never used the alleged pathway and had waived the same by long non-user. It was further contended that since the defendants specifically denied the tasementary right, the suit for bare injunction without seeking declaration of casementary right was not maintainable in law. The defendants also questioned the correctness of the rough sketch and valuation of the suit.

6.The Trial Court upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence held that the plaintiffs were granted a cart track right and that such right continued to subsist and further held that the plaintiffs had established lawful possession and right of user, thus, the Trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction on 13.10.2017. On appeal, the First Appellate Court framed necessary points for consideration and independently re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. The Appellate Court held that when a right of way is granted under a registered Partition Deed, it amounts to easement by grant, and in such cases, a separate declaratory relief is not mandatory. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit was dismissed on 05.08.2024, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that both the Courts below committed serious errors in law by granting injunction in the absence of a declaratory relief. Heavy reliance was placed on certain portions of the cross-examination of PW1 to contend that the plaintiffs themselves admitted non-existence of the cart track. It was also argued that the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the physical features of the property and wrongly discarded the plead of the defendants regarding impossibility of laying a pathway. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing this appeal.

8.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records.

9.lt is an admitted fact that the parties traced their title through a registered Partition Deed dated 16.08.1955. A reading of Ex.Al clearly shows that a cart track of specified width was expressly granted to the plaintiffs. Such a right flows fr