The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of two civil appeals filed by the Gala family, who sought easementary rights over a road situated on land owned by the Ramani family. The Gala’s claimed a right of way by prescription and necessity, but the Court ruled against them due to insufficient evidence of uninterrupted use for the statutory period of 20 years and the existence of an alternative route for access to their land. The decision of the lower courts, which found no established easementary right, was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

1. Dispute Background:

   • The dispute arose over a 20 ft. wide road located on land Survey No. 57 Hissa No. 13A/1, owned by the Ramani family.
   • The Gala family, successors of Mahendra Gala, filed for easementary rights to this road in 1994, seeking access to their land (Survey No. 48 Hissa No. 15).

2. Legal Proceedings:

   • Suit No. 14 of 1994: Filed by the Gala’s for declaration of easementary rights and a permanent injunction. Initially decreed in their favor, the judgment was overturned on appeal by the Ad-hoc District Judge and upheld by the High Court.
   • Suit No. 7 of 1996: Filed by the Ramani’s seeking a declaration that the Gala’s had no right of way over the road. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but decreed in favor of the Ramani’s on appeal.

3. Supreme Court Ruling:

   • The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by the Gala’s, finding that they failed to prove uninterrupted use of the road for over 20 years as required under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.
   • The Court also noted the availability of an alternative access route, negating the claim for easement of necessity under Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act.
   • Additionally, the photocopy of the sale deed relied upon by the Gala’s was ruled inadmissible as evidence.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Indian Easements Act, 1882
   • Section 4: Definition of Easement.
   • Section 13: Easement of Necessity.
   • Section 15: Easement by Prescription (20 years of uninterrupted use).

Ratio Decidendi:

The Gala’s failed to establish easementary rights by prescription due to lack of proof of uninterrupted use for 20 years as required by Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act. Additionally, the existence of an alternative access route nullified the claim of easement of necessity under Section 13. The absence of original evidence further weakened the Gala’s case.

Subject:

Easementary Rights Dispute, Prescription, and Necessity

#Easement #SupremeCourt #LandDispute #IndianEasementsAct #RightOfWay #PropertyLaw #PrescriptiveRights #CivilAppeal