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…!
Disqualification in Certain Cases: If the use was permissive or the pathway was constructed without adverse claim, the prescriptive easement cannot be established ["Mercy D/o Peter VS Agnus Maria E. J. W/o Joseph Sebastian - Kerala"], ["MATHEW vs V.J.SCARIA - Kerala"], ["Sherif Vincent S/o. Vincent vs M.C. Stephen S/o. Cheeku - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["MATHEW vs V.J.SCARIA - Kerala"]- ["Mercy D/o Peter VS Agnus Maria E. J. W/o Joseph Sebastian - Kerala"]- ["THOMAS (DIED & LRS IMPLEADED) vs PARVATHY (DIED & LRS RECORDED) - Kerala"]- ["THOMAS, S/O CHACKO vs SARAMMA, W/O KURUVILLA - Kerala"]- ["SAJEEVAN vs NANDANAN & OTHERS - Kerala"]- ["BALAKRISHNAN Versus NOTTATH VALAPPIL KUNHIMOL - Kerala"]- ["P.T.JOHNY Vs KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD - Kerala"]- ["K.P. VELAYUDHAN vs K.P. BALAN - Kerala"]- ["Sasidharan S/o Parameswaran vs Benny S/o Not Known - Kerala"]- ["HEERA BAI VS THAKURI (DECEASED BY L. RS. ) - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Komath Sreelatha, D/o. Saudamini vs Komath Narendran,(Died) Lhs. - Kerala"]- ["Hirabai VS Ramprasad - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["R.V. Ganesha Bhatta, S/O Late Venkataramana Bhatta vs State Bank Of Mysore - Karnataka"]- ["Varghese VS Jose Mathew @ Roy - Kerala"]- ["K.P. VELAYUDHAN vs K.P. BALAN - Kerala"]- ["Sherif Vincent S/o. Vincent vs M.C. Stephen S/o. Cheeku - Kerala"]- ["K.V.MAMMEN @ KUNJUMON vs THOMAS T MALI - Kerala"]
Imagine discovering that the pathway you've used to access your property for decades is suddenly blocked by a new fence. You believe it's your right to use it, but is long-term use enough? For many property owners in India, the question arises: For establishing the right of easement by prescription on a pathway, what are the ingredients to be proved?
This blog post breaks down the legal requirements under the Indian Easements Act, 1882, particularly Section 15, drawing from key judicial precedents. We'll explore the core elements needed to claim a prescriptive easement, common pitfalls, and insights from case law. Note: This is general information based on legal principles and should not be considered specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
An easement by prescription, often called a prescriptive easement, allows someone to gain a legal right to use another's land (the servient tenement) for a specific purpose, like a pathway, after prolonged use. Unlike an easement of necessity—which requires common ownership and no alternative access—prescription is based on adverse, open use over time.Rajkumar VS Academy of Maritime Education and Training - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2148
Under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, the right must be peaceably and openly enjoyed by the claimant as an easement and as of right, without interruption for twenty years.P. C. Alexander VS K. E. Joseph @ Benny - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 957 This distinguishes it from permissive use, which never ripens into a prescriptive right, no matter the duration.P. C. Alexander VS K. E. Joseph @ Benny
To establish a right of easement by prescription over a pathway, the claimant must prove continuous, open, peaceful, and uninterrupted enjoyment for at least 20 years, as of right and without permission, backed by specific pleadings and evidence.Shanti Conductors(P) Ltd. VS Assam State Electricity Board - 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 680
Courts emphasize that mere long use isn't sufficient; it must be adverse—meaning asserted as a legal right, not with the owner's consent. Here's a breakdown of the key ingredients:
The cornerstone is proving continuous enjoyment without interruption for the statutory 20-year period. This must be specific, with clear start and end dates. Vague claims like from time immemorial won't suffice without evidence.Shanti Conductors(P) Ltd. VS Assam State Electricity Board - 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 680
For instance, in one case, the claimant alleged over 70 years of use for ingress and egress via a pathway with stone pillars as a culvert, but courts scrutinize if it was truly uninterrupted.P. C. Alexander VS K. E. Joseph @ Benny - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 957P. C. Alexander VS K. E. Joseph @ Benny
The use must be as of right—openly claimed without seeking permission. If it's permissive (e.g., neighborly allowance), it remains a license and doesn't prescribe. Whatever be time period of permissive user, it would not ripen into a right of acquisition by prescription.P. C. Alexander VS K. E. Joseph @ Benny
Evidence must show no license existed, or it was revoked. Courts distinguish this from stealthy or secretive use.Bachhaj Nahar VS Nilima Mandal - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1421
Enjoyment must be open and peaceable, visible to the owner, not clandestine. The right of way should be peaceably and openly enjoyed by claimant as an easement and as of right, without interruption for 20 years.P. C. Alexander VS K. E. Joseph @ Benny - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 957
In a dispute over a 'B' schedule pathway, failure to prove open, continuous use led to dismissal.Rajkumar VS Academy of Maritime Education and Training - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2148
Pleadings must detail the exact period (e.g., 'from date to date') and nature of use. Generalized averments fail. Pleadings that would be necessary to establish easement by prescription are different from pleadings and proof necessary for establishing an easement of necessity.Rajkumar VS Academy of Maritime Education and Training - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2148
Support with:- Witness statements on duration and manner of use.- Documents like sale deeds or surveys.- Site inspections confirming the pathway's existence and use.Justiniano Antao VS Bernadette B. Pereira - 2004 8 Supreme 398
One court dismissed a claim due to lack of a survey plan showing the pathway's location and measurements before closure.Raveendran VS Lohithakshan - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 1486
Judicial decisions highlight strict proof requirements:
Failure to Prove 20 Years: In a suit for pathway declaration, the plaintiff couldn't establish uninterrupted use for 20 years as of right, openly, peaceably, and without interruption. Appeals were allowed, decree set aside.Kamala Devi Amma VS Rajan - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 1343
Alternate Access Irrelevant for Prescription: Unlike necessity easements, availability of another route doesn't defeat prescription if ingredients are met. Availability or otherwise of alternate pathways... cannot be taken as a defence in a case where a right by way of easement by prescription has been crystallized.Raveendran VS Lohithakshan - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 1486Mathai Varkey v. Thomas John - 1985 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6
No Mental Formulation Needed, But Proof Essential: Claimants don't need to prove they mentally asserted a legal claim, but adverse nature must be evident. Long use alone fails without adversity.Mathai Varkey v. Thomas John - 1985 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6
Pleading Specificity: Averments of use by predecessors openly, continuously and uninterruptedly, as of right, from time immemorial were insufficient without a plan or proof.EDAKUDI RAVEENDRAN @ RAVI S/O MOOTHORAKUTTY VS LOHITHAKSHAN S/O MADHAVI - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 378Raveendran VS Lohithakshan - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 1486
These cases underscore: Courts won't infer prescription; claimants bear the burden.Shanti Conductors(P) Ltd. VS Assam State Electricity Board - 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 680
Don't confuse with easement of necessity:
| Aspect | Prescription | Necessity ||--------|-------------|-----------|| Basis | Adverse use over 20 years | Common ownership + no alternative access || Period | Statutory 20 years | Arises on severance of title || Proof | Open, continuous, as of right | Impossibility of enjoyment without it |
To establish an easement of necessity, there must be common ownership and impossibility of enjoyment of one tenement without the other; mere lack of alternative access is insufficient.Rajkumar VS Academy of Maritime Education and Training - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2148
Prescription can coexist even without necessity elements.Mathai Varkey v. Thomas John - 1985 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6
Pro Tip: File suit promptly upon obstruction to avoid laches.
Establishing easement by prescription on a pathway demands rigorous proof of 20 years' continuous, open, peaceful, uninterrupted use as of right, without permission, via specific pleadings and evidence.Bachhaj Nahar VS Nilima Mandal - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1421Shanti Conductors(P) Ltd. VS Assam State Electricity Board - 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 680Justiniano Antao VS Bernadette B. Pereira - 2004 8 Supreme 398
Key Takeaways:- Prove exact 20-year period with dates. Shanti Conductors(P) Ltd. VS Assam State Electricity Board - 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 680- Show adverse, non-permissive use. Bachhaj Nahar VS Nilima Mandal - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1421- Use detailed pleadings and robust evidence. Justiniano Antao VS Bernadette B. Pereira - 2004 8 Supreme 398- Alternate paths don't defeat claims. Raveendran VS Lohithakshan - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 1486
Property disputes can be complex—seek professional advice to assess your case. Stay informed, protect your rights, and ensure your pathway use is documented.
References:1. Bachhaj Nahar VS Nilima Mandal - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1421: Principles for 20 years' peaceful, open enjoyment as of right.2. Justiniano Antao VS Bernadette B. Pereira - 2004 8 Supreme 398: Need for specific pleadings.3. Shanti Conductors(P) Ltd. VS Assam State Electricity Board - 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 680: Continuous, adverse use without permission.4. Additional cases: Rajkumar VS Academy of Maritime Education and Training - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2148, P. C. Alexander VS K. E. Joseph @ Benny - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 957, P. C. Alexander VS K. E. Joseph @ Benny, Kamala Devi Amma VS Rajan - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 1343, Raveendran VS Lohithakshan - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 1486, Mathai Varkey v. Thomas John - 1985 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6, EDAKUDI RAVEENDRAN @ RAVI S/O MOOTHORAKUTTY VS LOHITHAKSHAN S/O MADHAVI - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 378.
#PrescriptiveEasement #EasementLaw #PropertyRights
(b) Whether the statutory ingredients of easement by prescription is proved by the plaintiff in order to grant the relief sought for by him in the plaint. ... The statement of the plaintiff that Rugmini had carved out 8 feet width pathway for access is not proved with any cogent evidence. It is further pointed out that the conditions prescribed for a derivation of a right of easement by prescription are not met in the present case.....
In so far as the essentials to establish easement by prescription, the ingredients mandated under Section 15 of the Easement Act should have been pleaded and proved. ... Answering this contention, it is held that availability of alternative pathway with more convenience to the dominant tenement is not a reason to deny easement by prescription if the essentials are pleaded and proved by the plaintiff’s. ... It is also pointed out tha....
to prove the existence of a right of easement by prescription. ... Thus, it is pointed out that, when the existence of the pathway is satisfactorily proved, the ingredients for easement by prescription have been clearly established by the plaintiff and therefore, the findings to the contrary are unsustainable. ... It is further contended that the pathway in question is the only pathway for the plaintiff to access h....
“Were the courts below right in granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff when the plaintiff contended that she has acquired right of easement by prescription and also contended that there was severance of tenements and thus acquired a right of way by necessity ... It is contended that the plea of easement by necessity was raised only as an alternative plea and that, once the plaintiff was able to establish the ingredients required to claim an easement#H....
The plaintiff claimed a right of easement by prescription and necessity over B schedule pathway having a length of 250 metres and a width of 3 metres. ... Before the first appellate court, the reversal of the judgment was sought for on the grounds that B schedule pathway is not in existence and that the description is improper and further that the claim of easement by prescription is not properly proved. ... When the pleadings and evidence establish ....
So, the use of plaint B schedule way to perfect right of easement by prescription i.e. 20 years is a matter to be proved by examining somebody, who is capable of deposing about its use, to hold that the same ripened into right of easement by prescription. 13. ... As far as the ingredients to establish right of easement by prescription, the law is well settled. In the decision reported in Mercy v.....
not proved the easement by prescription by establishing the enjoyment of ”B” schedule path way for a statutory period of twenty years, as required under the provisions of Indian Easements Act. ... (vii) Pleadings that would be necessary to establish easement by prescription are different from pleadings and proof necessary for establishing an easement of necessity. 19. ... Though pleadings are available in the plaint with regard to easement....
This is not to say that in no case the easement by way of prescription could be established in respect of pathway in respect of which the claimants may not be able to prove easement of necessity. ... They do certain acts without formulating even mentally, a legal claim, and in my opinion a right to an easement by prescription cannot be defeated merely by showing that during the whole or part of the period of prescription the plaintiff was not conscio....
Finally, the trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs neither pleaded nor proved that they had acquired right of easement by prescription over plaint B schedule pathway. ... If a person sues for establishing a right of easement over a pathway, he has to plead and prove that he enjoyed the same as of right for a period of 20 consecutive years within 2 years next before the institution of the suit....
At any rate, there is no averment in the plaint as regards any claim of the plaintiff in OS No.72/2007 for any easementary right. At any rate, the ingredients of assessment by prescription are not made out and that easement of grant under any circumstances may not arise. ... It is further pointed out that the 2 respondent, plaintiff in OS No.72/2007, does not claim any right of easement by prescription and that the B schedule pathway is a public way ....
The said pathway continues through the northern extremity of plaint schedule item No.2 property belongs to the respondent, and joins the road at the western side of plaint schedule item No.2. The appellant claims that the predecessor-ininterest of the plaint schedule item No.1 property, and thereafter the appellant had been making use of plaint schedule item No.3 pathway, continuously and openly as of right, for ingress and egress to the plaint schedule item No.1 property for more than 70 years, prior to the filing of the suit. Precisely, what has been pleaded is the right of easem....
The appellant claims that the predecessor-interest of the plaint schedule item No.1 property, and thereafter the appellant had been making use of plaint schedule item No.3 pathway, continuously and openly as of right, for ingress and egress to the plaint schedule item No.1 property for more than 70 years, prior to the filing of the suit. For having access to the plaint schedule item No.3 pathway three stone pillars are laid over the narrow watercourse passing through the western side of the plaint schedule item No.1 and the said stone pillars are being used as a small culvert. Prec....
It is clear from the decisions cited supra , it is clear that in order to get a decree for declaration of easement by prescription, the plaintiff must prove that (1) Probably existence of pathway may be helpful to disallow relief of easement by necessity not by easement by prescription. Suppression of existence of alternate pathway is not a ground to disallow claim for a right by way of easement by prescription provided the plaintiff was able to establish that he or she had acquired right of way by prescription by proving the ingredients provided under Section 15 of the Eas....
The question to be considered is whether such averments could bring out a right to claim a pathway by way of easement by prescription. In the plan, the plaintiffs have averred that their predecessors-in-interest and in continuation the plaintiffs, had been using the plaint-B schedule item openly, continuously and uninterruptedly, as of right, from time immemorial.
The question to be considered is whether such averments could bring out a right to claim a pathway by way of easement by prescription. In the plan, the plaintiffs have averred that their predecessors-in-interest, and in continuation the plaintiffs, had been using the plaint B schedule item openly, continuously and uninterruptedly, as of right, from time immemorial.
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
