A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case primarily addressed whether the appellants had an easementary right over a disputed pathway located on land owned by the respondents. The appellants claimed easementary rights based on prescription and necessity under the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants failed to substantiate their claim under Sections 4, 13, and 15 of the Act. The appellants could not establish that the pathway was continuously and uninterruptedly used for over 20 years or that it was indispensable for accessing their property. The evidence presented, including testimony by a power of attorney holder, was insufficient and legally inadmissible.

The judgment underscores the principle that easementary rights must be backed by clear evidence of usage and necessity, and that pleadings cannot exceed their statutory framework or legal prerequisites.

Keywords: Easementary right, Prescription, Necessity, Servient Heritage, Power of Attorney Holder.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors.

ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 9642 of 2010

iii) Judgement Date
10 April 2024

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

vi) Author
Justice Pankaj Mithal

vii) Citation
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 357

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Indian Easements Act, 1882, Sections 4, 13, 15
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 107

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case
None.

x) Case Related to Law Subjects

• Property Law
• Civil Procedure Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case emerged from disputes over a 20-foot-wide pathway, claimed by the appellants as essential for accessing their property (Survey No. 48 Hissa No. 15). The respondents, owners of Survey No. 57 Hissa No. 13A/1, denied the appellants’ claims of easementary rights. The appellants asserted rights based on prescription and necessity under the Indian Easements Act. Lower courts had previously dismissed their claims due to insufficient evidence.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants owned Survey No. 48 Hissa No. 15, while the disputed pathway traversed the respondents’ property at Survey No. 57 Hissa No. 13A/1. The appellants alleged that the pathway was their only access route and that they had used it for years. However, their claim lacked specific details about uninterrupted usage for the statutory 20-year period.

A prior owner of the appellants’ land, Joki Woler Ruzer, initiated the suit in 1994 but transferred his rights to the appellants before its conclusion. The appellants’ reliance on evidence by their power of attorney holder was a significant focus of the trial.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Did the appellants acquire easementary rights over the pathway by prescription or necessity under Sections 13 and 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882?
2. Was the testimony of the appellants’ power of attorney holder admissible and sufficient to establish their claims?
3. Could easementary rights be transferred through the sale deed executed in favor of the appellants?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellants contended that:

1. The pathway was their sole access to Survey No. 48 Hissa No. 15, constituting a necessity under Section 13 of the Act.
2. They had continuously and peaceably used the pathway for “many years,” meeting the criteria for prescription under Section 15.
3. Easementary rights were impliedly transferred through the 1994 sale deed executed by their predecessor-in-interest.
4. The trial court’s findings in their favor were improperly overturned by the appellate courts, which misapplied procedural and substantive law.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The respondents argued that:

1. The appellants did not provide evidence of uninterrupted usage for 20 years as required under Section 15 of the Act.
2. There existed an alternative pathway, nullifying the claim of necessity under Section 13.
3. The appellants’ reliance on a photocopy of the sale deed was legally untenable, as it was inadmissible evidence.
4. The appellants’ power of attorney holder lacked personal knowledge of the usage of the pathway before 1994.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish their easementary rights under both prescription and necessity. Their pleadings did not satisfy the statutory requirements, and their reliance on the testimony of the power of attorney holder was insufficient.

b. Obiter Dicta
The Court emphasized that pleadings must explicitly meet statutory thresholds and that evidence cannot exceed what is pleaded.

c. Guidelines

1. Easementary claims under prescription must show uninterrupted and peaceable use for a continuous 20 years.
2. Claims based on necessity require evidence of indispensability, not mere convenience.
3. Testimony by a power of attorney holder is valid only when the holder has personal knowledge of the facts.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment clarifies the evidentiary and statutory standards required for establishing easementary rights. It reaffirms that mere assertions or incomplete evidence cannot form the basis of such claims. The decision also reinforces procedural safeguards, emphasizing that appellate courts have the authority to overturn trial court findings if they are unsupported by evidence.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 555
2. Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd. (2005) 2 SCC 217
3. A.C. Narayan v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 11 SCC 790

Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Easements Act, 1882 (Sections 4, 13, 15)
2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 107)