The Supreme Court of India rendered a historic decision in a drawn-out legal dispute over easement rights, dismissing two appeals in the process. The conflict included rights to a vital 20-foot-wide road and pitted Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. against Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors. It all stems from the government's acquisition of property and its subsequent transactions.
The ruling, written by Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra, clarified the acquisition and extinction of easementary rights by carefully analyzing the intricate legal concerns and supporting documentation put forth by both sides.
The central point in the case was whether the Gala had obtained easement rights over the contested road, which was located on Ramani territory. Attorney representing the parties appealing, Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, advanced arguments invoking legal precedents such “Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs. vs. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors” to support their claim. However, the court observed that the evidence fell short of establishing uninterrupted use of the road for the requisite period of 20 years, as mandated by Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act,
“The use of the term ‘last many years’ is not sufficient to establish uninterrupted use for over 20 years,” remarked Justice Mithal. He further elaborated, “The Gala’s failed to provide concrete evidence of continuous and uninterrupted use of the road, a fundamental requirement for acquiring easementary rights through prescription.”
Additionally, the court addressed the Gala’s argument of acquiring easementary rights under a sale deed dated 17.09.1994. Counsel for the appellants contended that the rights granted under the deed should remain intact, irrespective of the cessation of necessity. However, the court distinguished the case from precedent, citing “Dr. S. Kumar & Ors. vs. S. Ramalingam,” and emphasized the need for the grantor to possess the rights being transferred.
With emphasis, Justice Mishra stated, “The sale deed in question lacked probative value, as it failed to establish that the predecessor-in-interest of the Gala’s had acquired easementary rights over the disputed road.”
In addition, the court discussed the appellate court's authority and emphasized that the first appellate court had authority similar to that of the court of original jurisdiction. According to Justice Mithal, "the first appellate court is empowered to overturn findings of fact if they are against the evidence on record or based on incorrect interpretation."
Ultimately, the appellant's allegations about easementary rights were dismissed by the Supreme Court, which maintained the rulings of the lower courts.
Case Name: MANISHA MAHENDRA GALA & ORS. Vs. SHALINI BHAGWAN AVATRAMANI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9642 OF 2010
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Order dated: 10.04.2024
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
