Implied Grant and Easement of Necessity Are Fundamental: High Court Upholds Property Access Rights

Madras High Court affirms right to use common staircase for terrace access, emphasizing principles under the Indian Easements Act, 1882.The High Court of Judicature at Madras has upheld a significant judgment in a property dispute involving easement rights. In a decision delivered by Justice Abdul Quddhose on July 4, 2024, the court dismissed the second appeal filed by A. Manivannan and affirmed the Principal District Judge’s decree allowing the respondent, Thariq, to use a common staircase to access the terrace above his shops. This judgment reinforces the principles of implied grant and easement of necessity under the Indian Easements Act, 1882.

The dispute centers around the right to use a common staircase to access the terrace above Thariq’s shops, which he purchased from a common vendor, Kanthammal, under a sale deed dated September 23, 2005. The defendant, Manivannan, purchased an adjacent portion of the property, including the staircase, from the same vendor on April 30, 2010. Manivannan contended that Thariq’s rights were limited to using the staircase only up to the first floor, while Thariq asserted his right to access the terrace using the staircase. The trial court partially granted Thariq’s request, allowing access only to the first floor, but the appellate court extended this right to include the terrace.

Justice Abdul Quddhose highlighted the principles of implied grant and easement of necessity. The court noted that the terrace could only be accessed through the common staircase and that the original vendor had enjoyed this access before selling the properties. “There is an implied grant given to the plaintiff to use the staircase located over and above his three shops in the first floor,” stated the judgment.

The court referred to Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which indicates that all rights of the vendor are transferred to the purchaser unless expressly excluded. The court emphasized that Thariq’s sale deed did not restrict his right to use the staircase for terrace access. “As per Section 8, the transferee gets all rights and interest in the property,” the judgment asserted.

The court observed that Thariq was not a party to Manivannan’s sale deed, which attempted to restrict access to the staircase. “Any restriction imposed in Ex.B2 cannot legally bind the plaintiff,” the court noted, referring to the sale deed dated April 30, 2010, in Manivannan’s favor.

Justice Quddhose remarked, “The obstruction caused by the defendant to the plaintiff to use the staircase for reaching the terrace is in violation of Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act.”

The High Court’s dismissal of the appeal underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding easementary rights and the principles of implied grant. By affirming the lower courts’ findings, the judgment clarifies the legal framework surrounding property disputes involving easement rights. This decision is expected to have significant implications for similar cases, reinforcing the doctrine that rights and access impliedly granted through property transactions must be respected.

Date of Decision: July 4, 2024