Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred Intent Coupled with Trespass Constitutes Full Offence: Supreme Court Mere Possession of Bribe Money Insufficient Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance: Supreme Court Right to Promotion is Not a Fundamental Right; Retrospective Benefits Without Service Cannot Be Granted: Supreme Court of India Oral Gift Validity in Mohammedan Law: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Constructive Possession and Injunction Unauthorized Construction on Government Irrigation Land Must Be Demolished: Calcutta High Court Directs Sub-Divisional Officer High Court Upholds Dismissal of Petition Over Road Obstruction Due to Non-Prosecution Victim of Rape Has Right to Bodily Integrity and Reproductive Choice: Gujarat High Court Permits Termination of 24-Week Pregnancy

Alternative Access Exists, Negating Easement of Necessity Claim: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

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.

 

Similar News