A. BADHARUDEEN
Pavizhamma, W/o Sasidharan – Appellant
Versus
Mangalamma, W/o Subramanyan – Respondent
Section 15 of the relevant Act generally pertains to the extinguishment or modification of easements, or the conditions under which easements can be altered or terminated. It emphasizes that any change to an easement must be carried out in accordance with the terms of the original grant or agreement, or through lawful procedures prescribed by law (!) .
This section also highlights that the rights associated with an easement are subject to the original intentions of the parties and the specific provisions laid out in the grant or relevant legal instruments. Any alteration or extinguishment of an easement requires clear evidence of consent or lawful authority, ensuring that the rights of all parties are protected and that any changes are made within the bounds of the law (!) .
Furthermore, the section underscores that modifications to easements should not adversely affect the reasonable use and enjoyment of the dominant or servient land beyond what was originally intended or agreed upon, unless explicitly permitted by law or mutual agreement (!) .
In summary, Section 15 emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural and substantive legal requirements when modifying or extinguishing easements, reinforcing the principle that such rights are subject to the terms of the original grant and the lawful procedures for change (!) .
JUDGMENT :
This regular second appeal has been filed under Section 100 r/w Order XLII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for short), challenging dismissal of AS No.33/2016 on the files of the Additional District Court-II, Kollam, dated 15.11.2022, arose out of the decree and judgment in OS No.501/2011 on the files of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kollam, dated 30.11.2015. The appellants herein are the defendants in the above suit. The respondent herein is the plaintiff.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants on admission.
3. I shall refer the parties in this regular second appeal as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants' for convenience.
4. A suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the plaintiff. Originally, the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were purchased jointly by the plaintiff and the first defendant. as per a sale deed. According to the plaintiff, while the plaintiff and the first defendant jointly possessing and enjoying the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, both of them executed partition deed No.3357/1987 and as per the partition deed, plaint 'A' schedule p
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.