Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal held that “The easementary right by necessity could be acquired only in accordance with Section 13 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 which provides that such easementary right would arise if it is necessary for enjoying the Dominant Heritage.”.

• The court gave this observation in the case of Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani.

What was the Background of Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani Case?

• The Appellant owned the land bearing Survey No. 48 Hissa No. 15, which is the dominant heritage.
• The Respondent owned the land bearing Survey No.=57 Hissa No. 13A/1, on which the disputed 20 ft. wide road exists. This land is the servient heritage.
• The Appellant claimed an easementary right over the road (servient heritage) for the beneficial enjoyment and access to their land (dominant heritage).
• The Appellant argued that they had no alternative way to access their dominant heritage except through the disputed road on the Respondent's servient heritage.
• The trial court decreed in favor of the Appellant, but the appellate court and the High Court reversed the decision and dismissed the suit.
• Hence, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court held that the Appellant failed to prove that she had acquired any valid easementary right over the servient heritage (Respondent's land with the disputed road) for the beneficial enjoyment of their dominant heritage (their own land).
• The court found that the pleadings and evidence did not establish that the Appellant or her predecessor-in-interest had enjoyed the easementary right over the servient heritage for the statutory period of 20 years, as required for acquisition by prescription.
• Regarding the claim of easement of necessity, the court noted that since there was an alternative way to access the dominant heritage, the requirement of necessity for enjoying the dominant heritage was not satisfied.
• The court rejected the argument that the Appellant acquired easementary rights over the servient heritage under the Sale Deed dated 17^th September 1994, as there was no evidence that their predecessor-in-interest had perfected any such rights, which could be transferred.
• The court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had decreed that the Respondent was not obligated to allow the Appellant any easementary rights over the disputed road on their land.

How Court Explained the Legal Provisions Involved in the Case?

The main legal provisions disputed and explained by the Supreme Court in this case relate to the acquisition of easementary rights under the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The key provisions discussed are:

• Section 4 - Definition of 'Easement'
  • The court explained that an easement is a right which the owner or occupier of land possesses for the beneficial enjoyment of his land over another's land, to do or continue to do something, or to prevent something from being done.
• Section 15 - Acquisition of Easementary Rights by Prescription
  • The court discussed that to acquire an easementary right by prescription, it must have been peaceably enjoyed without interruption for 20 years.
  • The court found that the Appellant's pleadings and evidence did not establish the use of the road for 20 years or more.
• Section 13 - Easement of Necessity
  • The court explained that an easement of necessity arises when it is necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant heritage.
  • However, the court noted that since there was an alternative way to access the Appellant's land, the easement of necessity could not be claimed.
• Transfer of Easementary Rights
  • The court discussed whether the Appellant acquired easementary rights under the Sale Deed dated 17^th September 1994.
  • It held that since there was no evidence that their predecessor-in-interest (Joki Woler Ruzer) had perfected any easementary rights over the disputed road, no such right could be transferred to the Gala's under the Sale Deed.

What is Dominant and Servient Heritage under Easement Act, 1882?

Section 4 of Indian Easement Act, 1882:

• An easement is 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.
• Dominant and servient heritages and owners.--The land for the beneficial enjoyment of which the right exists is called the dominant heritage, and the owner or occupier thereof the dominant owner; the land on which the liability is imposed is called the servient heritage, and the owner or occupier thereof the servient owner.
• Explanation.--In the first and second clauses of this section, the expression "land" includes also things permanently attached to the earth; the expression "beneficial enjoyment includes also possible convenience, remote advantage, and even a mere amenity; and the expression "to do something" includes removal and appropriation by the dominant owner, for the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant heritage, of any part of the soil of the servient heritage or anything growing or subsisting thereon.