Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Bachhaj Nahar VS Nilima Mandal...

Checking relevance for Hero Vinoth (Minor) VS Seshammal...

Checking relevance for Madai Lakshmi Alias M. Rajalakshmi VS P. M. Partha Kumar...

Checking relevance for Ramkanya Bai VS Jagdish...

Checking relevance for Sree Swayam Prakash Ashramam VS G. Anandavally Amma...

Checking relevance for Navinchand S/o Tilakchand Shah Vs Bhikulal Ramdulare Gupta...

Navinchand S/o Tilakchand Shah Vs Bhikulal Ramdulare Gupta - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 86 : Yes, both easement of necessity and prescription can be pleaded in one suit. The court explicitly states that ''''if a party has easementary right under Section 13 of the Act and also under Section 15 of the Act, it can be claimed simultaneously.'''' This confirms that claims based on easement of necessity (under Section 13) and easement by prescription (under Section 15) are not mutually exclusive and may be raised together in the same legal proceeding.Checking relevance for Marisetti Nageswara Rao S/o Veeraiah VS Lokam Venkateswara Rao (Died)...

Marisetti Nageswara Rao S/o Veeraiah VS Lokam Venkateswara Rao (Died) - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 861 : Yes, both easement of necessity and prescription can be pleaded in one suit, but they must be clearly pleaded and proven as separate claims. The judgment emphasizes that the pleadings necessary for establishing an easement by prescription are different from those for an easement of necessity. A plaintiff seeking relief for an easementary right must specifically plead and prove the nature of the easement, the manner of its acquisition, and the disturbance to the right. The court also notes that a court cannot assume or infer a case of easementary right from stray statements in the pleadings or evidence. Therefore, while both types of easements may be claimed in a single suit, each requires distinct pleadings and evidence, and the plaintiff must clearly assert each claim in the plaint.Checking relevance for Rangasamy VS Palanigounder...

Rangasamy VS Palanigounder - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 223 : Yes, both easement of necessity and prescription can be pleaded in one suit, but they require distinct pleadings and proofs. The court emphasized that the pleadings necessary to establish an easement by prescription are different from those required for an easement of necessity. For prescription, the plaintiff must plead and prove peaceful, open, and uninterrupted enjoyment for twenty years (ending within two years before the suit), and that the right was enjoyed independently of any agreement with the owner. For necessity, the plaintiff must plead that the dominant and servient tenements were originally a single tenement under the same ownership, that there was a severance, and that the easement is essential for the use of the dominant tenement. The court also noted that pleadings for different types of easements (e.g., passage vs. drainage) are distinct, and a court cannot infer an easementary right from vague or stray statements in pleadings. Therefore, while both can be pleaded in one suit, each must be clearly and separately pleaded with the required factual and legal basis.Checking relevance for Dhirajbai W/o Tilakchand Shah VS Bhikulal Ramdulare Gupta...

Dhirajbai W/o Tilakchand Shah VS Bhikulal Ramdulare Gupta - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 22 : Yes, both easement of necessity and prescription can be pleaded in one suit. The court explicitly states that ''''Section 13 of the Act provides for easements of necessity and quasi-easements, while Section 15 of the Act provides for easements by prescription. In other words, if a party has easementary right under Section 13 of the Act and also under Section 15 of the Act, it can be claimed simultaneously.'''' This confirms that a plaintiff may plead both types of easements in the same legal proceeding.Checking relevance for Rajkumar VS Academy of Maritime Education and Training...

Rajkumar VS Academy of Maritime Education and Training - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2148 : Yes, both easement of necessity and prescription can be pleaded in one suit, but they are distinct legal claims requiring different pleadings and proof. The court emphasized that the pleadings necessary to establish easement by prescription are different from those required for easement of necessity. In this case, the plaintiffs pleaded easement of necessity, and the courts considered it as such, even though the first appellate court erroneously treated the claim as one based on prescription. The court noted that the plaintiffs'''' claim was specifically based on necessity, not prescription, and that the trial court had properly analyzed the claim under the doctrine of necessity. The court also observed that the plaint contained a clear pleading that there was no alternate access to the property except through the ''''B'''' schedule property, which supported the claim of necessity. Therefore, while both claims can be pleaded in one suit, they must be clearly distinguished in pleadings and evidence, and the courts must not misread the nature of the claim.

• Easement of Necessity and Prescription Can Be Pleaded Simultaneously Several sources indicate that a plaintiff can plead both easement of necessity and easement by prescription in the same suit, provided the pleadings are clear and consistent. For example, in RAJMAL RAJPUT vs SIDHU RAM - Himachal Pradesh_HC_HPHC010062812007, the court observed that the plaintiff pleaded exercising rights based on both necessity and prescription, and the suit was not liable to be dismissed solely on this basis. Similarly, JAYAPAL vs AGILA AMMAL - Madras noted that courts have considered both claims when pleaded, even if the pleadings initially focus on one ground.RAJMAL RAJPUT vs SIDHU RAM - Himachal Pradesh, JAYAPAL vs AGILA AMMAL - Madras

• Pleadings Must Be Clear and Non-Contradictory Courts emphasize the importance of clear pleadings. In KALYAN SPINNING MILLS vs M.CHELLAPPAN - Madras, it was noted that if a plaintiff claims easement of necessity, they must specifically plead and prove it; claiming both necessity and prescription requires clarity to avoid contradictions. The courts have sometimes misread pleadings, leading to errors, but generally, both can be pleaded if properly articulated.KALYAN SPINNING MILLS vs M.CHELLAPPAN - Madras, JAYAPAL vs AGILA AMMAL - Madras

• Legal Principles and Conditions An easement of necessity arises typically after a transfer or bequest where access is essential for enjoyment, and it ceases once necessity ends (KALYAN SPINNING MILLS vs M.CHELLAPPAN - Madras). Easements by prescription require long, uninterrupted use (usually over 20 years) and are distinct from necessity-based easements (JAYAPAL vs AGILA AMMAL - Madras). Both rights can coexist if properly pleaded, but they are governed by different legal principles.KALYAN SPINNING MILLS vs M.CHELLAPPAN - Madras, JAYAPAL vs AGILA AMMAL - Madras

• Implication of Cessation of Necessity Under Section 41 of the Indian Easements Act, easements of necessity are extinguished when the necessity ends, but prescription rights are not necessarily affected (KALYAN SPINNING MILLS vs M.CHELLAPPAN - Madras). Therefore, pleading both allows for asserting a right based on current necessity and a separate right based on long-term use.

Conclusion:Both easement of necessity and easement by prescription can be pleaded in a single suit, provided the pleadings are clear, specific, and consistent. Courts recognize that these are distinct claims rooted in different legal requirements, and both can be maintained simultaneously if properly supported by evidence and pleadings.