Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Easement by Grant and Easement by Prescription: Do They Go Together?
Insights: Courts recognize that easements by grant are based on clear contractual or statutory provisions, and the user must adhere to the conditions specified in the grant. It is a recognized method of acquiring easement rights, especially when supported by documentation like sale deeds 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 116, 2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 2352, 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 733.
Easement by Prescription
Insights: Evidence such as oral testimony is crucial; however, failure to prove continuous use for the statutory period can invalidate a prescription claim. The courts differentiate between rights acquired via prescription and those via grant or necessity.
Relationship Between the Two
Summary:Easements by grant and prescription are separate legal concepts. While they can both establish rights to use land, they do not inherently go together; the existence of one may negate the need for the other. Courts recognize both methods, but the proof and application differ significantly. Ultimately, the choice of method depends on the evidence and circumstances of each case.
References:- 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 116- 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 4474- 2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 12487- 2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 2352- 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 733
In property disputes, easements play a crucial role in determining rights to use another's land, such as pathways or cart tracks. But what happens when a claimant tries to assert both an and an ? The question arises: Whether the and Go Together? This blog post dives into the legal nuances, drawing from court precedents and key principles to clarify this often-confusing area of property law.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation.
Easements grant a non-owner the right to use another's property for a specific purpose, like access roads or utilities. Indian law, primarily governed by the , recognizes several ways to acquire them. Two common methods are and .
An is created through an explicit agreement, typically documented in a deed or sale document. It can be express—clearly stated—or implied from the circumstances of property use. The grantor voluntarily transfers the right, and its scope is defined by the terms provided.
For instance, courts have held that is established through express terms in a deed or by necessary implication 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 4037. In one case, a sale deed explicitly conferred usage rights, limiting the easement to the granted conditions 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 733. This method relies on formal documentation, making it straightforward when deeds like Ext.A2 are available 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 733.
Key characteristics include:- Formal basis: Deed, contract, or implication.- Voluntary: Granted by the property owner.- Defined scope: Governed by the grant's language 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 116.
In contrast, an emerges from long-term, continuous, and without permission. It requires proving uninterrupted use for a —often 20 years for private rights or longer under certain jurisdictions.
The emphasizes that this arises from continuous and uninterrupted use of the property over a , which establishes a right through long-standing practice rather than a formal grant 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 3218 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 3217. Claimants must show , often supported by witness testimony or historical evidence 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 116.
Failure to prove the full period can doom the claim, as seen in cases where oral evidence fell short 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 4474.
Here's the crux: while both can establish easement rights independently, they cannot coexist in the same legal claim. Courts view them as fundamentally distinct—and —methods.
The has ruled that easements by grant and prescription are fundamentally different, with distinct requirements for proof and establishment. They cannot be claimed simultaneously as they are 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3676SAMMANASU (DIED) vs M.CASHMIR - Madras (2024). Pleadings and evidence must align with one type; mixing them creates contradictions.
For example:- Claims require appropriate pleadings and evidence specific to each type. A claim cannot be made for both simultaneously without contradicting the nature of each easement 1997 0 Supreme(Mad) 1573 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 882.- In a case, defendants were denied rights via prescription, necessity, or grant due to lack of proof for any single method: the defendants are not entitled to ... by way of , or 2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 98444.
Attempting both undermines the case: prescription implies no permission (), while grant implies permission. Courts dismiss hybrid claims for this reason 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 3218 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 3217.
Other rulings reinforce separation. In a Gujarat case, amending a suit to include easement rights risked changing its nature, as easement claims challenge title indirectly 2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 4220. Similarly, Kerala courts directed parties to civil courts for establishing specific easement rights, without blending types 2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38545.
One petition highlighted interlinked reliefs but allowed pursuit of easement over pathways separately 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2196. In Telangana, obstructions to alleged easements were contested without merging grant and prescription 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16926. A trial court granted usage rights based on deeds (grant) but conditioned them, tried alongside title suits 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 337.
Even where a commissioner confirmed a granted pathway (D Schedule), it was tied to the plaintiff's grant assertion, not prescription
Aneesh VS Aneena - Current Civil Cases
. Appeals often fail if alternative paths exist, regardless of type 2014 0 Supreme(Raj) 1410 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 3650.These cases show courts demand clarity: pick one path and prove it robustly.
Blending claims can lead to dismissal. If a grant exists via deed, prescription becomes unnecessary—and claiming it implies the grant is invalid, weakening both 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 733. Conversely, strong prescription evidence might negate grant reliance.
Practical Recommendations:- Choose wisely: Review deeds first for grants 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 116. If absent, gather use history for prescription.- Plead specifically: Tailor evidence—documents for grant, affidavits/timeline for prescription.- Avoid alternatives: Courts reject if other access exists 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 3650.- Seek : Preserve status quo via during suits
Aneesh VS Aneena - Current Civil Cases
.and prescription do not go together in a single claim due to their opposing foundations: permission vs. . Legal success hinges on precise pleading and targeted evidence. Property owners should document rights early to avoid disputes.
Key Takeaways:- Distinct proofs: Grant needs deeds; prescription needs time-proven use.- No hybrids: Courts reject simultaneous claims as contradictory 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3676.- Strategic choice: Evidence dictates the method—don't mix.
For tailored guidance, consult a property law expert. Stay informed to protect your rights.
References:2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 4037 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 116 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 3218 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3676SAMMANASU (DIED) vs M.CASHMIR - Madras (2024)2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 3217 1997 0 Supreme(Mad) 1573 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 882 2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 98444 2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 4220 2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38545 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2196 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16926 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 337
Aneesh VS Aneena - Current Civil Cases
2014 0 Supreme(Raj) 1410 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 3650 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 733 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 4474 #EasementLaw, #PropertyRights, #RealEstateLaw
In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/1st plaintiff would vehemently contend that the defendants are not entitled to cart track as alleged in the rough plan by way of easment by prescription, easment of necessity or easment by grant, since, it is apparent that the plea taken ... Therefore, the defendants are entitled to the suit cart track through easment by....
In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/1st plaintiff would vehemently contend that the defendants are not entitled to cart track as alleged in the rough plan by way of easment by prescription, easment of necessity or easment by grant, since, it is apparent ... Therefore, the defendants are entitled to the suit cart track through easment by grant#HL_....
It is submitted that learned Trial Court has framed issue no.2(a) and casted burden upon defendant to prove easment by grant in regards to right of way claimed. ... It is submitted that on one hand learned Trial Court has believed that defendant establishes right of way to pass through field of plaintiff, yet on other hand referred to principle of easment by prescription defined in section 15 and believed that defendant ha....
Pendent lite, if amendment is allowed, it would change nature of entire suit and suit for easment right would come within the purview of suit challenging title of defendants. Plaintiff has asked relief for easment right, essentially which lis is available to owner of property. ... Plaintiff in the suit for easment right intend to challenge proprietary of the Will, which bestow in predecessor in title of defendant. ... Judge, Surat below app....
She submitted that, therefore, if the seventh respondent requires his easment right over the property in question to be established, he will have to approach the competent Civil Court. 3.
3.Since the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions are interlinked with each other, both the writ petitions are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ... (MD) No.25002 of 2022 is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the Civil Court to establish that he or any member of the public is having right of easment over the disputed pathway, to have access to their respective hous....
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.1 basing on the representation made by the respondent No.2 and 76 others directing the petitioner No.1 not to obstruct the alleged easment from Sri Sai Nagar Colony to RCA main road and restore it to its original state.
Both the suits were tried together. The trial Court came to the conclusion relying upon Exhibits A1 to A4 that the suit second schedule property in O.S.No.29 of 1993 absolutely belongs to the plaintiffs therein. ... However, the First Appellate Court proceeded to grant right of usage of the second schedule property in favour of the defendant in O.S.No.29 of 1993 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.32 of 1994 with a condition that they should not alter the physical ....
8.Both the suits were tried together. ... However, the First Appellate Court proceeded to grant right of usage of the second schedule property in favour of the defendant in O.S.No.29 of 1993 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.32 of 1994 with a condition that they should not alter the physical features. ... 3.Whether the Lower Appellate Court failed to note that the respondents claimed title over the said second schedule property and when the respondents have no....
According to the learned Counsel, easment right granted over D Schedule by way of grant was asserted by the plaintiff and the Commissioner located existence of D Schedule as contended by the plaintiff. ... If the terms of the grant restrict its user subject to any condition the parties will be governed by those conditions. Any how the scope of the grant could be determined by the terms of the grant betwee....
In order to take vengeance, the plaintiffs damaged the suit cart track. The findings rendered by the Courts below rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs cannot be found fault with and they do not warrant any interference. Originally, the properties owned by the defendants and the plaintiffs, belonged to one and the same person. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/1st plaintiff would vehemently contend that the defendants are not entitled to cart track a....
According to the learned Counsel, easment right granted over D Schedule by way of grant was asserted by the plaintiff and the Commissioner located existence of D Schedule as contended by the plaintiff. P4 and P5 orders, to preserve the subject matter till the disposal of the suit and to protect use of the said pathway till then.
P4 and P5 orders, to preserve the subject matter till the disposal of the suit and to protect use of the said pathway till then. According to the learned Counsel, easment right granted over D Schedule by way of grant was asserted by the plaintiff and the Commissioner located existence of D Schedule as contended by the plaintiff.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that as the alternative way existed, the courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit based on easment and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be admitted.
(a) The plaintiffs should prove the right to use the road margin from the property of the plaintiffs. The claim of easementary right under Section 18 of the Easment Act is not maintainable. (c) The plaintiffs have alternative way to reach the Panagal Road.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
