Alternative Access Exists, Negating Easement of Necessity Claim: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s decision in Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors. pivoted around the concept of easement of necessity under the Indian Easements Act, 1882.
Facts and Issues: The Gala’s claimed easementary rights over a road on the Ramani’s property, asserting these rights were acquired by prescription, necessity, and under a Sale Deed dated 17.09.1994. The original suit in their favor was overturned on appeal, and the dismissal was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined if the Gala’s had legally established their claimed easementary rights.
Court’s Assessment:
Easementary Right by Prescription: The Court observed that the Gala’s failed to prove uninterrupted usage of the road for over 20 years, as required under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act. Their vague pleadings of “last many years” did not satisfy the legal requirement for prescription.
Easement of Necessity: It was found that an alternative access to the Gala’s land existed, thereby negating their claim of easement of necessity.
Transfer of Easement Rights: The Court noted the absence of evidence to suggest that easement rights were transferred to the Gala’s under the Sale Deed dated 17.09.1994. The Gala’s could not prove that their predecessors had any such rights to transfer.
Comparison with Another Easement: The contention of similar rights as another landowner (Dharmadhikari) was rejected, as Dharmadhikari’s rights were explicitly assigned in a separate sale deed.
Appellate Court’s Power: The Court held that the appellate court was justified in overturning the trial court’s findings, as it had the power to reassess evidence and findings.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the Gala’s had not established any legal or factual basis for claiming easementary rights over the disputed road.
Date of Decision: 10th April 2024
Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors.
