Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 13 - Easements of Necessity and Quasi-Easements Main points: Section 13 deals with easements of necessity, which arise when property is transferred and there is no alternative access. Such easements are deemed to exist by law when the property passes by operation of law, and they are considered essential for the use of the property. Courts have upheld that rights of necessity are recognized under this section, but they can be extinguished if the necessity ceases, as per Section 41. Several judgments affirm that easements of necessity are created by law, not by contract, and are distinct from easements by grant or prescription. References: 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 40568, 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2342, 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2148
Easements of Necessity vs. Easements by Grant Main points: Easements of necessity (Section 13) are distinguished from easements by grant, which are contractual and can be expressed or implied. Easements of necessity are subject to statutory provisions like Section 41, which extinguish them when the necessity ends. Easements by grant, however, are contractual rights and do not get extinguished under Section 41. Courts have clarified that easements of necessity require a common ownership at the time of creation, whereas easements by grant depend on the terms of the grant. References: 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2342, 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2342
Prescription and Requirements under Section 15 Main points: To establish easements by prescription under Section 15, the claimant must prove continuous, peaceable, open, and adverse use of the property for at least 20 years. Courts have emphasized the importance of satisfying all seven ingredients of Section 15, including enjoyment as of right, without interruption, and with the requisite period. Failure to prove these ingredients results in rejection of easement claims by prescription. References: 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3676,
Satheeshkumar S/o. Vasu VS Paul S/o. Cherur Vazhiyil Neelankavil Lazar - Current Civil Cases (2024)
, 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 254Section 24 - Acts Necessary for Full Enjoyment Main points: Section 24 grants the dominant owner the right to do acts necessary for the full enjoyment of the easement, such as laying pipelines or repairing the way, even if such acts affect the servient estate. Courts have rejected arguments that this section does not apply in certain jurisdictions, affirming that acts necessary for easement enjoyment are permissible. References: 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3244
Legal Disputes and Court Interpretations Main points: Courts have held that claims based on Sections 13 and 15 require strict proof of the ingredients, including continuous enjoyment for 20 years and the existence of a pre-existing easement. In cases where alternative access exists, easements of necessity are often deemed extinguished. Additionally, courts have recognized that rights of easement by grant or prescription are distinct and governed by different principles. References: 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4548, 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 948, 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57863
Judgments on Section 2 B (primarily Section 13) of the Indian Easements Act focus on the distinction between easements of necessity, easements by grant, and easements by prescription. Courts consistently emphasize the importance of proving the essential ingredients—such as continuous, open, and adverse use for 20 years—to establish easements by prescription. Easements of necessity are recognized by law but are subject to extinguishment when the necessity ceases, as per Section 41. Contractual easements (by grant) are governed by the terms of the agreement and are not affected by Section 41. Overall, the jurisprudence underscores the need for clear, substantial proof of use and necessity, with courts scrutinizing the existence, nature, and duration of claimed easements under the provisions of the Act.
In the realm of property law in India, understanding the nuances between and can make all the difference in resolving disputes over land use. Many property owners and litigants often grapple with Judgments on , wondering how courts interpret these provisions. This blog post dives deep into the legal framework, key principles, and landmark cases to clarify these concepts.
Whether you're a landowner facing access issues or a legal professional researching precedents, this guide provides comprehensive insights. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your situation.
Section 2(b) defines a customary right as any right (not being a license) in or over immovable property which the government, the public, or any person may possess irrespective of other immovable property. This provision is crucial because it sets apart from . Unlike , which must be appurtenant to a (a benefiting property), stand independently. They arise from long-standing local customs and do not require attachment to another parcel of land. 2022 0 Supreme(HP) 620
This distinction is pivotal in litigation. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that do not need the strict appurtenance required for . 1932 0 Supreme(Nagpur) 108
To grasp judgments on Section 2(b), it's essential to differentiate these rights:
For instance, a customary right might allow villagers passage through fields without owning adjacent land benefiting from it, whereas an easement demands such a connection. Courts hold that can be acquired by (' open use) or grant, but rely on proven custom. 1932 0 Supreme(Nagpur) 108
In , the court stressed that a claimed right must be strictly proved and reasonable to qualify as customary. 1932 0 Supreme(Nagpur) 108
Acquiring under Section 2(b) hinges on evidence of long-standing practice:1. Ancient and Continuous Use: Must show invariable observance over time.2. Reasonableness and Certainty: The right cannot be vague or burdensome.3. No Needed: Unlike by necessity, which end if ownership coalesces (), persist independently. 2005 0 Supreme(Ker) 21
by necessity, for example, arise when land is partitioned without access, but plaintiffs must plead specific ingredients—which courts scrutinize closely. In one case, courts rejected an easement claim due to alternative pathways and lack of pleaded necessity. 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 2659
Judicial interpretations have shaped Section 2(b) through practical applications:
: The court upheld a based on long-standing use, even if not explicitly pled as such. This highlights flexibility in recognizing customs from evidence. 1897 0 Supreme(Mad) 141
: A right of burial was deemed a local custom, not an easement, due to no dominant heritage—reinforcing Section 2(b)'s scope. 1932 0 Supreme(Nagpur) 108
Villagers' Right of Passage: In a dispute over passage through private fields to a forest, courts recognized it as a customary right based on historical use, overriding denials. 1932 0 Supreme(Nagpur) 108
Related easement cases further illuminate boundaries. For example, under , compensation may address damages from constructions interfering with , but only partial demolition is ordered to balance interests: instead of removing whole construction... only that much part... should be demolished. 2013 0 Supreme(UK) 181
, distinguished under , are personal permissions (not rights over property) and revocable unless permanent works are built. In one ruling, a defendant could not claim ownership via a late-raised sale deed at execution, preventing . 2020 0 Supreme(UK) 143 2016 0 Supreme(All) 3508
These cases underscore that while demand strict proof (e.g., no release by implication under ), focus on community practice. 2005 0 Supreme(Ker) 21
Courts consistently require robust evidence for Section 2(b) claims:- Documentation: Witness testimonies, historical records, or village maps.- Pleading Precision: Clearly distinguish from to avoid dismissal.
In property suits, overlapping issues like () arise—e.g., revocation if no permanent construction per terms. One appellate court invalidated a lease not acted upon, emphasizing evidence appreciation. 2016 0 Supreme(All) 3508
For easement interference, remedies like or demolition are tailored: substantial damage under warrants compensation, but minimally invasive. 2013 0 Supreme(UK) 181
Judgments on Section 2(b) illuminate the flexible yet evidence-based nature of versus rigid . They empower communities with independent land-use claims but demand proof of reasonableness and antiquity. Key takeaways:- do not require a —e.g., public passages or burial rights. 1932 0 Supreme(Nagpur) 108 2022 0 Supreme(HP) 620- Always plead specifics; courts reject vague or late claims. 2020 0 Supreme(UK) 143- Balance servient owners' rights in remedies. 2013 0 Supreme(UK) 181
Recommendations:- Document long-standing uses thoroughly.- Differentiate claims in pleadings.- Assess local customs' viability pre-litigation.
References: 1897 0 Supreme(Mad) 141 1932 0 Supreme(Nagpur) 108 2022 0 Supreme(HP) 620 2020 0 Supreme(UK) 143 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 2659 2016 0 Supreme(All) 3508 2013 0 Supreme(UK) 181 2005 0 Supreme(Ker) 21
This analysis draws from established precedents, offering general guidance. For tailored advice, engage a legal expert familiar with Indian property law.
#IndianEasementAct, #CustomaryRights, #EasementLaw
Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, provides that if the alternative transit is not available, then the party can claim a right of easement. 21. ... To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, which reads as under: "13. Easements of necessity and quasi easements. ... No.559 of 1994 have rightly passed the im....
Once an easement of necessity is pleaded, then under Section 41 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, the same would get extinguished, when the necessity comes to an end. ... The second appeal has been admitted by this Court on 09.12.2020 on the following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in concluding that the easement of necessity stands extinguished in view of ....
Seshammal case cited supra has held that easement by grant may be expressed or even by necessary implications. In either case, it will not amount to an easement of necessity under Section 13 of the Indian EASEMENTS ACT , 1882. ... An easement by grant does not get extinguished under Section 41 of the Act which relates to an easement o....
Trial Court by applying Section 60 Clause (b) of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 as because the Easement Act does not apply in West Bengal. Ld. ... This Court takes into consideration Section 60 of The Indian Easements Act 1882, which has been relied upon by the respondent. Section 60 of The Indian Ea....
He would also invite my attention to Section 13 of Easements Act, 1882 which relates to easement of necessity. Section 13 of the Easements Act, 1882 is extracted hereunder: “13. Easements of necessity and quasi-easements. ... 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 provis....
Admittedly, the Suit second schedule property was a government poromboke land and the plaintiff cannot claim easementary right under Section 13 of the Indian EASEMENTS ACT , 1882 . ... The plaintiff lays her claim based on Sections 13 and 15 of the Indian EASEMENTS ACT , 1882 . ... To answer the Substantial Questions of Law specifically, the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the ingredients of #HL_STAR....
The learned counsel for the respondents also pressed into service Section 24 of Indian Easements Act in support of her contention. ... Section 24 of Indian Easements Act reads as follows; "24 Right to do acts to secure enjoyment -The dominant owner is entitled, as against the servient owner, to do all acts necessary to secure the full enjoyment of easement....
The counsel also would vehemently contend that when the plaintiff is seeking the relief of easementary right, there must be pleading and comply with the 7 ingredients of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (for short 'the Act of 1882') but no such pleading in the plaint. ... The counsel also brought to notice of this Court to Section 15 of the said Act which provides a right of ....
Section 19 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 provides the answer to the question that is posed above. of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 reads as under; Section 22 of the Limitation Act 1963 speaks of a fresh period of limitation as long the breach continues. Still further, the plaintiff purchased the property in the year 2018 only. The suit is instituted in the year 201....
What are the essentials to establish right of easement by prescription as provided under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882? 2. ... As far as the ingredients to establish right of easement by prescription, the law is well settled. In the decision reported in Mercy v. Agnus Maria E.J. [2023 KHC 828], this Court set out essential ingredients to be complied under Secti....
-Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a license.' Section 52 of the Indian Easement Act is quoted hereunder:- 1 and 2 had already held the status of the defendant/appellant being that of a te....
An easement is a right which the owner or occupier of certain land possesses, as such, for the beneficial enjoyment of that land, to do and continue to do something, or to prevent and continue to prevent something being done, in or upon, or in respect of, certain other land not his own. At this juncture, it is better to understand what 'easement' is. Section 4 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 defines 'easement' as follows:-
The point of determination in this matter was as to whether constructions were raised by defendant-appellant were of permanent character, and if so, then whether those constructions were raised in accordance with terms of license and acting upon the license. Section 60 of the Indian Easement Act reads as under: -
B. Whether compensation as provided under Section 33 of Indian Easement Act, 1882, will meet the ends of justice. A. While raising of the construction of first floor defendant caused substantial damage to the plaintiff 5 within ambit of Section 33 of Indian Easement Act, 1882.
“(a) Cannot an easement by express grant the released by implication? (b) Is not section 38 of the Indian Easement Act applicable to an easement by express grant? (c) Is not the burden of proving an easement by necessity upon the person who claims it?
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
