Easementary Rights Denied: Supreme Court Upholds No Right of Way Over Disputed Land in Manisha Mahendra Gala vs. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 10, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 293

Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Can a person claim a right of way over someone else’s land simply because they have been using it for many years? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning easementary rights over a disputed road. The core issue was whether the appellants had a legal right to use a 20-foot wide road on the respondents’ property, based on claims of prescription, necessity, or agreement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the appellants, denying their claim to an easement. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

Case Background

The dispute revolves around a 20-foot wide road located on land owned by the respondents, referred to as the ‘Ramani’s’. The appellants, referred to as the ‘Gala’s’, claimed easementary rights over this road, asserting it was their only access to their property. The land in question originally belonged to Ramchandra Borkar, who lost it due to unpaid government dues. The government then sold parts of the land in public auctions.

The timeline of events is as follows: Ramchandra Borkar owned Survey No. 48 Hissa No. 15 and Survey No. 57 Hissa No. 13. Due to arrears, the government acquired these lands. On April 25, 1969, the government sold Survey No. 48 Hissa No. 15 to Woler Francis. Subsequently, Vasant Ramchandra Borkar, from the original owner’s family, reacquired part of the land. On July 9, 1988, Vasant Borkar sold Survey No. 57 Hissa No. 13A/2 to Dharmadhikari. On September 11, 1989, the remaining part of Survey No. 57, designated as Hissa No. 13A/1, was sold to the Ramani family.

In 1994, Woler Francis died, and his heir, Joki Woler Ruzer, initiated a suit (Suit No. 14 of 1994) claiming easementary rights over the disputed road. During the pendency of this suit, Joki Woler Ruzer transferred his land (Survey No. 48 Hissa No. 15) to Mahendra Gala, the predecessor of the current appellants. Mahendra Gala was then added as a plaintiff in the suit. After Mahendra Gala’s death, the present Gala’s were substituted as his heirs. Simultaneously, the Ramani’s filed Suit No. 7 of 1996, seeking a declaration that the Gala’s had no right of way through their land.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially decreed Suit No. 14 of 1994 in favor of the Gala’s on February 6, 2003, recognizing their easementary rights. It also dismissed Suit No. 7 of 1996 filed by the Ramani’s. However, the appellate court overturned this decision on March 12, 2009, dismissing the Gala’s suit and decreeing the Ramani’s suit, holding that the Gala’s had no right of way. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld the appellate court’s decision on October 1, 2009, in Second Appeal No. 305 of 2009. Aggrieved by these decisions, the Gala’s appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. Section 4 of the Act defines an easement as:

“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.”

The land to be benefitted is called the ‘Dominant Heritage,’ and the land on which the easement is claimed is called the ‘Servient Heritage.’

Section 15 of the Act deals with the acquisition of easementary rights by prescription, stating that:

“Where the right to any easement has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto, as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, the right to such easement shall be absolute.”

Section 13 of the Act addresses easements of necessity, which arise when a property cannot be accessed without using another’s land.

Arguments

Arguments of the Gala’s (Appellants):

• The Gala’s are the owners of Survey No. 48 Hissa No. 15 and have no other way to access their land except through the disputed road.
• They have acquired easementary rights by prescription and necessity over the disputed road.
• The Sale Deed dated September 17, 1994, records their right of way through the disputed road.
• The appellate court should not have overturned the findings of the trial court, which had ruled in their favor.
• Relying on Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs. vs. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 555, they argued that pleadings should be construed liberally and need not contain the exact language used in the statute.

Arguments of the Ramani’s (Respondents):

• The Gala’s do not have any easementary rights over the disputed road.
• They purchased the property (Survey No. 57 Hissa No. 13A/1) and have not allowed uninterrupted use of the road by the Gala’s.
• The Gala’s have an alternative way to access their land.

The Gala’s argued that their right of way was established through the sale deed and continuous use, while the Ramani’s contested this, stating that the Gala’s had an alternative access route and no legal right to use their road.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following primary issue:

1. Whether the Gala’s have any easementary right of way over the land of the Ramani’s, specifically the disputed road.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs. vs. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 555 – Supreme Court of India
• Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd. (2005) 2 SCC 217 – Supreme Court of India
• A.C Narayan vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) 11 SCC 790 – Supreme Court of India
• Dr. S. Kumar & Ors. vs. S. Ramalingam (2020) 16 SCC 553 – Supreme Court of India

Legal Provisions:

• Section 4, Indian Easements Act, 1882 – Definition of Easement
• Section 13, Indian Easements Act, 1882 – Easement of Necessity
• Section 15, Indian Easements Act, 1882 – Easement by Prescription
• Section 107, Code of Civil Procedure – Powers of Appellate Court

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court distinguished Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs. vs. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors [(1987) 2 SCC 555], stating that while pleadings should be liberally construed, essential legal requirements must still be pleaded.
• The Court followed Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd. [(2005) 2 SCC 217] and A.C Narayan vs. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 11 SCC 790], reiterating that a Power of Attorney holder can depose if they have personal knowledge of the transaction.
• The Court distinguished Dr. S. Kumar & Ors. vs. S. Ramalingam [(2020) 16 SCC 553], stating that the right of easement claimed in that case was expressly granted under the sale deed, unlike in the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of sufficient evidence to support the Gala’s claims of easementary rights. The court emphasized the following points:

• Insufficient Evidence of Prescription: The Gala’s failed to prove that they or their predecessors had used the disputed road continuously and without interruption for 20 years, as required by Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The court noted that the term “last many years” was not sufficient to establish 20 years of usage.
• Alternative Access: The court found that the Gala’s had an alternative way to access their land, which negated their claim of easement by necessity under Section 13 of the Act.
• Lack of Transfer of Easement Rights: The court held that the sale deed of 17.09.1994 did not transfer any easementary rights to the Gala’s, as the original owners had not possessed such rights to transfer. The court also noted that the original sale deed was not produced, and a photocopy was inadmissible.
• Weak Evidence: The court noted the absence of testimony from Joki Woler Ruzer, the original plaintiff, and the reliance on a Power of Attorney holder who did not have personal knowledge of the relevant facts.
• Appellate Court Powers: The court clarified that the appellate court has the power to review and overturn the findings of the trial court if they are not supported by evidence.

The court’s reasoning was a combination of factual analysis (lack of evidence, alternative access) and legal interpretation (easement laws, appellate powers).

The Court observed, “The use of the term “last many years” is not sufficient to mean that they have been enjoying the same for the last 20 years.” and “It is settled in law that a fact which is not specifically pleaded cannot be proved by evidence as evidence cannot travel beyond the pleadings.” The Court also said, “The said sale deed would not bind the third parties who are not signatories or parties to the said sale deed.”

Key Takeaways

• To claim an easement by prescription, one must prove continuous and uninterrupted use for 20 years.
• An easement of necessity cannot be claimed if there is an alternative way to access the property, even if it is less convenient.
• A sale deed does not automatically transfer easementary rights unless such rights are explicitly mentioned and legally valid.
• A Power of Attorney holder can only depose about facts within their personal knowledge.
• Appellate courts have the power to review and overturn findings of trial courts if they are not supported by evidence.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this case. The Court simply dismissed the appeals.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that to establish an easementary right by prescription, the claimant must prove continuous and uninterrupted use for 20 years, as per Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The court also clarified that an easement of necessity cannot be claimed if there is an alternative way to access the property and that a sale deed does not automatically transfer easementary rights unless explicitly mentioned. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding easements and clarifies the burden of proof required to establish such rights. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Gala’s, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The court found that the Gala’s failed to establish any easementary rights over the disputed road, whether by prescription, necessity, or agreement. This judgment underscores the importance of providing concrete evidence when claiming easementary rights and reinforces the established legal principles governing such rights.