2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 63935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1941
RSA.No.1419 OF 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14-07-2011 IN AS 93/2006 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29-11-2005 IN OS 181/1996 OF
MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
GOPINATHAN NAIR,
VIJAYALAM, NADUVILEM MURI,NOORANADU.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
SMT.A.SALINI LAL
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
RADHAMONY,
AREEPURATHUKIZHAKKETHIL,
NADUVILE MURI, NOORANADU,PIN 690514.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAGADEESH
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA.No.1419 OF 2011 2
['SRI R SUNIL KUMAR', '', 'SMT A SALINI LAL', 'SRI T S HARIKUMAR']
A suit for declaration of prescriptive right of
easement and easement by necessity ended in
dismissal in both the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court, against which the plaintiffs came
up with this appeal. During the trial stage,
necessity alone was pressed into service. But the
commissioner who visited the property reported the
existence of two other alternative ways, one is
passing through the southern corner of the property
of plaintiffs through the property of defendant.
The other one is through the western side of
plaintiffs' property, but it was blocked by the
adjoining property owner.
2.
The necessity would arise only in the
absence of an alternative way. An alternative way
which is available should be the one in which the
plaintiff can use it as of right. The legal
position was very much settled in Kochan Ramanathan
RSA.No.1419 OF 2011 3
v. Kochan Natarajan (1990 KHC 316). Easement of
necessity would arise only on severance of tenement
and when there is absolute necessity without which
the plaintiff cannot use their property on
severance. But it is equally settled that the
plaintiff cannot dictate a particular way in
existence and claim easement by necessity over it.
It can be granted by providing a way by the court
through the property of the defendant without
causing much disturbance to the servient heritage
or its ownership. A way is scheduled in the plaint
and claimed easement by necessity over the way. It
is not permissible. The way scheduled in the plaint
leading to the property of plaintiffs and the two
other ways reported by the commissioner would go
against the claim of easement by necessity.
Regarding the other two ways in existence, it is
upon the plaintiffs to establish that they cannot
use the same as of right as an easement, for which
except a denial, no satisfactory evidence was
adduced. The concurrent finding rendered by both
the courts below hence deserves no interference.
RSA.No.1419 OF 2011 4
No substantial question involved.
The appeal fails, dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE