Delhi District Court
Genesis Dream Merchants P Ltd vs John Doe on 16 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-06, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ No.542/2025
CNR No.DLST01-012645-2025
1. M/S GENESIS DREAM MERCHANTS
PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
4 MMTC/STC MARKET,
GEETANJALI ENCLAVE,
NEW DELHI 110017
THROUGH ITS AR MR. VINOD KUMAR. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. JOHN DOE
S/O UNKNOWN
R/O UNKNOWN
2. GNCT OF DELHI
THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
3RD FLOOR, IP ESTATE,
NEW DELHI 110002.
[email protected]
3. PR. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND WILDLIFE
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL
Page 1 of 40
TERRITORY OF DELHI,
A-BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,
I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI 110002
[email protected]
4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DELHI, MB ROAD,
SAKET, NEW DELHI 10068.
5. SHO, PS FATEHPUR BERI
NEW DELHI 110074. ..Defendants
Date of Institution : 18.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 16.10.2025
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PROHIBITORY, PERPETUAL,
PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION,
EASEMENTARY RIGHTS AND DAMAGES
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. By way of this judgement, this Court shall strive to decide and dispose of the captioned suit.
2. The present suit filed by the plaintiff (M/s Genesis Dream Merchants Pvt. Ltd.) represented through its Director/ authorized representative, Mr. Vinod Kumar, has been filed against multiple defendants including "John Doe" (unknown persons), the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, the Principal Page 2 of 40 Chief Conservator of Forests, the District Magistrate South Delhi, and the SHO of PS Fatehpur Beri.
3. The plaintiff has prayed for the reliefs i.e. the relief of declaration for declaring the plaintiff, its' associates, agents, employees, legal representatives, as the case maybe, to have easementary rights/right of using the passage way (subject land) connecting the only exit and entry points of agricultural land measuring 6 Bigha 14 Biswa, comprised in Mustatil No.18, Killa No.2 Min (1-5), 9 Min (1-17), 12 Min (3-12), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jonapur, Tehsil-Mehrauli, Tehsil- Mehrauli, New Delhi (said property), as well as seeking decree of perpetual, permanent and mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, their known and unknown accomplices and others, thereby prohibiting the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the 'said property' and the use of the "subject land", along with damages to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
NATURE AND SCOPE OF SUIT
4. The suit is fundamentally for declaration, permanent and prohibitory injunction, perpetual and mandatory injunction, assertion of easementary rights, and damages.
5. The plaintiff seeks a declaration affirming its lawful, absolute ownership and peaceful possession of agricultural land Page 3 of 40 measuring 6 Bigha 14 Biswa in Village Jonapur, Tehsil-Mehrauli, New Delhi, as established by a registered sale deed and revenue records.
6. By way of the suit, the plaintiff further seeks judicial protection for its unfettered enjoyment of easementary rights over the only passageway connecting its land to the main road, a right asserted as both historical and uninterrupted, forming an ancillary cornerstone of the suit on the basis on easement by necessity. Details of the documents/ annexures are as follows:
Annexu Date Parties Nature of Details
re No. Document
ANX-1 18.08.2025 Plaintiff (Ms Authority Authorization
Colly Genesis Letter letter of Mr.
Dream Vinod Kumar to
Merchants represent the
Pvt Ltd) & plaintiff
AR Mr. Vinod company in
Kumar legal matters.
ANX-2 19.03.2024 Seller - IN Registered Sale deed for
Colly SHROOF Sale Deed agricultural land
HUF through measuring 6
Karta Bigha 14 Biswa,
Ashwani Village Jonapur,
Shroof, Buyer New Delhi.
- Plaintiff
ANX-3 N/A Plaintiff Revenue True copy of
Colly Records revenue records
for the subject
property.
Page 4 of 40
ANX-4 N/A Plaintiff Site Plan Copy of the site
Colly plan depicting
the passageway
connecting the
property to the
main road.
ANX-5 17.08.2025 Plaintiff & PS Police Complaint
Colly Fatehpur Beri Complaint against
& unknown
WhatsApp persons
Screensho impersonating
t forest officials,
threatening
plaintiff's
possession.
ANX-6 17.08.2025 Plaintiff & Email Email
Colly DCP South Complaint complaint sent
Delhi Police to DCP South
Delhi regarding
threats and
demands by
unknown
persons.
7. This list of documents filed by the plaintiff encapsulates all main annexures referenced in the plaint, supporting affidavits, and applications, serving as documentary evidence substantiating the plaintiff's claims regarding ownership, possession, threats, and harassment, as alleged, related to the subject property and passageway. The rights claimed by the plaintiff remain unrebutted, and un-impugned.
Page 5 of 40FACTUAL MATRIX
8. The plaint delineates episodes of unlawful interference and criminal intimidation allegedly perpetrated by unknown persons claiming to be forest officials or agents of government departments. The said unknown individuals, pretending to be officials of the forest department (defendant no.3) are alleged to have issued threats, demanded illegal gratification of ₹20,00,000, and obstructed the plaintiff's ingress, egress, and peaceful possession of the property.
9. The plaint details the reporting of these incidents to appropriate law enforcement authorities, including complaints to both the local police station- Fatehpur Beri and the DCP South Delhi, which were met with reluctance and inaction, deepening the plaintiff's apprehensions.
PLAINTIFF'S LEGAL GROUNDS
10. The averments mentioned in the plaint cites the following. Lawful ownership in favor of the plaintiff by virtue of registered sale deed, revenue records, and actual possession. Established passage rights amounting to easement by necessity and uninterrupted usage by both the plaintiff and its predecessor in interest.
Alleged criminal conspiracy by unknown intruders and possible Page 6 of 40 collusion by officials, amounting to breach of statutory rights, threats, extortion, and tortious interference with property and possession.
Statutory and constitutional rights to property, peaceful enjoyment of the said passage/ path, and legal protection.
RELIEFS PRAYED
11. The plaintiff seeks the following principal reliefs:
Declaration of easementary rights concerning the passageway.
Perpetual, prohibitory, permanent and mandatory injunctions restraining the defendants, their agents and all persons acting through or for them from trespassing, encroaching, interfering, or otherwise harming the property or easement rights. Directions to the District Magistrate, DCP South Delhi, and SHO PS Fatehpur Beri to keep watch over illegal activities and safeguard the plaintiff's rights.
Award of damages amounting to ₹3,00,000, with liberty to seek further exemplary and special damages subject to fulfilment of ad valorem court fee.
Appointment of a Local Commissioner for inspection and identification of the subject property to ascertain the factual context and to preserve evidence in support of the plaintiff's claims.Page 7 of 40
ANCILLARY APPLICATIONS AND AFFIDAVITS
12. The suit is accompanied by supporting affidavits affirming the veracity of the plaint and the contents of the application, authority letters establishing the locus of Mr. Vinod Kumar, and annexures including the sale deed, revenue records, site plan, and complaints sent to the police officials.
13. Applications under CPC, especially Section 151, Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 7, seek urgent interim and ex parte reliefs to preserve status quo and prevent irreparable loss were also filed by the plaintiff.
DATE WISE PROCEEDINGS
14. 18.08.2025: Institution of the suit, and First Hearing:
Fresh suit was filed and assigned. The same was checked and registered.
The Plaintiff sought urgent interim relief (Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC), citing obstruction of easementary passage, threats, and inaction from authorities.
This Court declined ex parte ad-interim injunction but directed all parties to maintain status quo regarding the passage and easementary rights.
Application for appointment of Court Commissioner considered.Page 8 of 40
This Court appointed a Court Commissioner for site visit and inspection of documents, the state of affairs on 20.08.2025, with police protection mandated.
Summons and notice of interim application were issued to defendants by all permissible modes; Dasti service was allowed.
The Plaintiff was directed to file its compliance affidavit under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC which was duly filed subsequently.
The matter was adjourned for 23.08.2025. 18.08.2025.: Directions to the Local Commissioner:
The appointed Court Commissioner was instructed to inspect the property at noon, along with the documents, the factual state of affairs, photos-videos, and submit its report.
Police officials were to be deputed to assist the Commissioner.
15. 23.08.2025: Filing of Local Commissioner's Report Local Commissioner's report was submitted and copy supplied to parties.
Lawyers abstained from work, hence proceedings conducted via video conference.
Arguments on interim application and further proceedings were fixed for 30.08.2025.
Status quo orders were to continue.
Page 9 of 4016. 30.08.2025: Counsel's Request for Time Plaintiff's Counsel appeared. None appeared for the defendants.
Time was sought by the plaintiff to file affidavit of service.
The matter was adjourned to 06.09.2025.
Interim order (status quo) continued.
17. 06.09.2025: Adjournment Adjournment was granted on the request of the plaintiff.
Interim orders were maintained.
Next date was fixed for service compliance and further proceedings.
18. 20.09.2025: Defendant's Non-appearance and Ex Parte Order:
Plaintiff's Counsel and authorized representative were present. Defendants remained absent despite service.
Affidavit of service dated 06.09.2025 along with tracking Page 10 of 40 report, postal receipts was filed on the record of the Court.
In lieu of the submissions of the plaintiff, the Defence was struck off and the suit was ordered to proceed ex parte.
Issues were framed focusing on plaintiff's entitlement to declaration, injunctions, and damages.
Upon pleadings of the plaintiff, following issues are were settled -
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of decree of declaration as prayed for?OPP (2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of Perpetual, Prohibitory, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction as prayed for?OPP (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages as claimed for?OPP (4) Relief.
Evidence affidavit was directed to be filed within two days, with copy to defendants.
On the request of the Plaintiff, examination-in-chief of PW-1 Page 11 of 40 was fixed for 25.09.2025 at 11:30 am.
19. 25.09.2025: Plaintiff's Evidence Plaintiff's authorized representative entered the witness box and sought to examine himself as sole witness. The witness PW-1 was discharged.
Sh. Vinod Kumar as PW-1 to prove the case of the plaintiff, relied upon the following documents: -
Authority Letter dated 18.08.2025 along Ex. PW1/1 with PAN Card and Aadhar of the AR of (Colly.) the plaintiff company.
Copy of sale deed dated 19.03.2024. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) Certified copy of revenue records. Mark-A Site Plan Mark-B Copy of police complaint along with Ex. PW1/5 screenshot of whatsapp chat depicting (Colly.) service to SHO PS Fatehpur Beri.
Copy of police complaint to DCP, South. Ex. PW1/6 Certificate u/s 63 BSA. Ex. PW1/7 Page 12 of 40 None appeared for the defendants despite service and intimation.
Plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Matter was listed for final arguments on 04.10.2025.
Plaintiff was directed to file written arguments within two days.
20. 04.10.2025: Hearing Fixed for Arguments Case listed for final arguments; record preparation and procedural completion.
The matter was adjourned for 10.10.2025.
21. 10.10.2025: Final Arguments Plaintiff's Counsel appeared and addressed his final arguments at length.
None appeared on behalf of the defendants.
Matter posted for clarifications, if any, and for judgement on 14.10.2025.
Page 13 of 4022. 14.10.2025: Matter adjourned for 16.10.2025, for judgement.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF:
23. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff advanced his arguments at length, along with filing detailed written submissions, supported by judgements of The Hon'ble Superior Courts.
24. It has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff as follows:
24.1 The plaintiff had filed the above-captioned suit seeking declaration for declaring the plaintiff, its' associates, agents, employees, legal representatives, as the case maybe, to have easementary rights/right of using the passage way (subject land) connecting the only exit and entry points of agricultural land measuring 6 Bigha 14 Biswa, comprised in Mustatil No.18, Killa No.2 Min (1-5), 9 Min (1-17), 12 Min (3-12), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jonapur, Tehsil-Mehrauli, Tehsil-
Mehrauli, New Delhi (said property), as well as seeking decree of perpetual, permanent and mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, their known and unknown accomplices and others, thereby prohibiting the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the 'said property' and the use of the "subject land", along with damages of Page 14 of 40 Rs. 3,00,000/-.
24.2 The plaintiff purchased the said property from I.N. SHROOF (HUF) through its' Karta Sh. Ashwani Shroof, S/o Sh. Inder Nath Shroof by way of a registered sale deed executed on 19.03.2024 and registered on 23.03.2024 (Ex. PW1/2 OSR). 24.3 It has been argued that the plaintiff had been using the passageway/road connecting the only entry and exit of the said property (subject land) since the time of its' purchase. Further, prior to the same, the predecessor-in-interest of the "said property"
also used the only road/passageway for entry-exit, ingress-egress since the time of purchase of the said property, thereby having unfettered and uninterrupted easementary rights qua the same. 24.4 However, for the last few months, some unknown persons, claiming themselves to be forest officials/GNCT of Delhi officials began visiting the said property, in order to create hindrances for the plaintiff and its' associates. The said officials refused to identify themselves and extended threats to the plaintiff and its' associates to pay an amount of Rs 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) to the purported forest officials, in order to continue the usage of the subject land.
24.5 The plaintiff complained about the said incident to the police officials vide police complaint to SHO, PS Fatehpur Beri (Ex. PW1/5) and complaint to DCP, South (Ex. PW1/6) but no action was taken against the wrong doers thereby necessitating the Page 15 of 40 plaintiff to approach this Court by way of filing the present suit.
25. Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of the defendants, therefore, vide order dated 20.09.2025, this Court struck off the defence of the defendants and directed the matter proceeded ex-parte.
26. Considering the pleadings, following issues were framed by this Hon'ble Court on 20.09.2025: -
a) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP
b) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of Perpetual, Prohibitory, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction as prayed for? OPP
c) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages as claimed for? OPP
d) Relief.
27. The plaintiff examined Sh. Vinod Kumar as PW-1 to prove the case of the plaintiff. He relied upon the following documents: -
Authority Letter dated 18.08.2025 along Ex. PW1/1 with PAN Card and Aadhar of the AR (Colly.) of the plaintiff company.
Copy of sale deed dated 19.03.2024. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) Certified copy of revenue records. Mark-A Site Plan Mark-B Page 16 of 40 Copy of police complaint along with Ex. PW1/5 screenshot of whatsapp chat depicting (Colly.) service to SHO PS Fatehpur Beri.
Copy of police complaint to DCP, Ex. PW1/6 South.
Certificate u/s 63 BSA. Ex. PW1/7
28. It has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel that vide order dated 18.08.2025, this Court appointed a Local Commissioner to take on record the factual position and actual state of affairs at spot.
The Commission was executed on 20.08.2025 and the Ld. LC filed his report on 23.08.2025.
29. It has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the Ld. LC has confirmed in his report that the subject land and the surrounding area is the only road/passage for ingress and egress leading up to the property of the plaintiff which connects it with the main road and that the same is being used by the plaintiff and its' associates.
30. As submitted, the Ld. LC further confirmed that the said road (subject land) was found to be broken/damaged at two distinct portions and the same was damaged by some unknown men during night hours on 19.08.2025-20.08.2025 despite status quo orders. A police complaint was filed to the same effect.
Page 17 of 4031. The site plan of the spot was duly prepared by the architect in the presence of the Ld. LC, and the photographs and videography undertaken by the Ld. LC during the execution of commission substantiates the claims of the plaintiff.
32. The plaintiff is also relying upon the report of the Ld. LC and the evidence taken by him during the execution of the commission.
33. It has been argued that it is settled law in terms of Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC that the report of the Local Commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be read evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record.
34. It is also submitted that the plaintiff also filed its affidavit of service depicting service on the parties/ defendants impleaded by it in the present suit. Despite service, none chose to appear before the Ld. Court. The Plaintiff accordingly pressed upon the Ld. Court to proceed against the defendants Ex-parte.
35. The Ld. Court proceeded against the defendants Ex-parte, and directed the plaintiff to lead its evidence which was duly complied with on 25.09.2025.
36. It has been argued that the plaintiff has an absolute right, and necessity to use the said piece of land/ passage way connecting the main road with its property as it is the only point of entry and exit for the plaintiff, which gives it passage and connectivity with the main road.
Page 18 of 4037. There is no other alternative passage/ route/ access point which can grant the same access, entry-exit to the plaintiff. Further, the same stands confirmed by the Court appointed Commissioner, who was filed its report confirming the stand of the plaintiff.
38. None of the defendants have controverted/ objected to the report of the Ld. Court Commissioner. The report of the Court Commissioner stands confirmed.
39. The plaintiff has also tendered and relied upon documents, ie khatoni/ revenue records going back to the year 1993-94, which show the name of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff (erstwhile owner) in regards to the subject property, thereby establishing the fact that the previous owner IN Shroof has been in possession of the property 'subject property/ said property', and has been enjoying the same without any hindrance/ obstructions, up till the date of selling the property to the plaintiff ie March 2024.
40. It has been argued that as per the law of the land, the plaintiff has acquired all the rights of the previous owner in regards to the subject land and the said property, including, but not limited to the right to use the said passage way ie subject land for entry- exit, ingress-egress, and travel, as the 'subject land' is the only piece of land which connects the main road with the property of the plaintiff.
Page 19 of 4041. It has been argued that the plaintiff has discharged its burden and onus of proof as per law, and requests this Court to dispose of the application filed u/or 39 Rule 1 & 2 and the present suit in favor of the plaintiff.
42. It has further been argued and submitted on behalf of the plaintiff as follows:
The law of easement of necessity in India is primarily governed by Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. An easement of necessity arises when the owner of a property (dominant heritage) cannot access or enjoy their property without using a portion of a neighbor's land (servient heritage).
This type of easement is based on absolute necessity, not mere convenience, meaning there must be no other reasonable access available to the property owner.
Key points include:
The easement must be co-extensive with the necessity at the time it was created and lasts only as long as the necessity exists.
It typically arises in situations like landlocked properties or when joint family property is partitioned and one share requires access through another. The servient owner is legally obligated to allow the Page 20 of 40 use of their land for this access, even if no express grant was made.
This legal principle ensures that property owners are not deprived of the practical use of their land due to lack of access, and it is considered an implied right that arises automatically by law when the conditions are met.
Feature Easement by Necessity Implied by law upon transfer/severance of Origin property Statutory Basis Section 13, Indian Easements Act, 1882 Condition for Absolute necessity for enjoyment- no alternative Right way Requirement Arises at the time of severance, proven necessity Duration Exists as long as necessity persists Legal Character Based on implied grant or consent, not hostility Claims are mutually exclusive, cannot exist Coexistence together Page 21 of 40 Feature Easement by Necessity Extinguishment Ends if alternative access becomes available Easement by Prescription It is developed when someone continuously, openly, and peacefully uses a way over another's land as a right (not through permission) for 20 years or more.
The use must be adverse (i.e. without the real owner's explicit permission), open to sight, and uninterrupted. After satisfying the 20-year requirement, the right is vested and remains regardless of changes in necessity or ownership.
Easement of necessity arises at the moment of severance; prescription starts only after necessity ceases and adverse enjoyment begins.
Permission or implied grant under necessity negates hostile use needed for prescription.
Easement by necessity is meant for unavoidable land access due to property division, and ends with alternate access, while prescriptive easement recognizes long-standing, unconsented use and becomes a permanent right after statutory conditions are met.Page 22 of 40
JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON :
HERO VINOTH V. SESHAMMAL (2006) 5 SCC 545, SREE SWAYAM PRAKASH ASHRAMAM V. G. ANANDAVALLY AMMA (AIR 2010 SC 622), DR. S. KUMAR & ORS. VS S. RAMALINGAM (2020) 16 SCC 553, MAHENDRA GALA & ORS. V. RAMANI'S (2024 INSC 293) (Copies filed) OBSERVATIONS & REASONING Legal Analysis and Core Issues
43. The submissions focus primarily on the question of easementary rights--specifically, the nature, creation, and extinguishment of easements, including easement by grant, easement by necessity, and easement by prescription.
44. A critical issue is whether a right of way or passage is an easement acquired by grant (contractual) or an easement of necessity (implied by law) and the legal consequences for each.
45. The submissions of the plaintiff emphasize that easements by grant are governed strictly by the terms of the grant (contract), while easements of necessity last only as long as the necessity exists and are extinguished when alternative access exists.
Page 23 of 4046. A key principle underlined is that easementary rights granted expressly or by necessary implication cannot be extinguished merely because an alternative access becomes available, unlike easements of necessity which cease when no longer necessary.
47. The legal concept of implied grant is emphasized as arising from conduct, acquiescence, or circumstances wherein a party is estopped from denying the existence of such an easement.
LEGAL DOCTRINE AND STATUTORY LAW
48. The Indian Easements Act, 1882 is central, with sections addressing easement by grant, necessity, extinguishment, and prescription.
49. Section 41 of the Act talks about limiting extinguishment to easements of necessity when necessity ceases is of importance.
50. The cases cited show the Hon'ble Courts have dealt with contracts and conveyances that create easements, including implied grants and equitable doctrines like acquiescence and estoppel.
OPINION AND CONCLUSION
51. The submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Page 24 of 40 strongly support the view that easement rights granted by deed or agreement are robust, continuing interests not extinguished simply by change in ownership or alternative access.
52. The said rights, either by necessity or by prescription advocate judicial caution in disturbing concurrent factual findings unless clear legal errors or statutory misinterpretations exist.
53. It is observed that the extinguishment of easement rights without proper pleadings or evidence violates procedural fairness and substantive law.
54. The case of the plaintiff supported by the facts, pleadings, circumstances, report of the Ld. LC and the citations promote the doctrine that judicial interference on fact-finding should be exceptional. Overall, the submissions made by the plaintiff have convinced this Court to observe and hold easement rights as property interests unless conclusively shown to be extinguished by law or agreement.
55. This Court has perused the judgements filed by the plaintiff, and is inclined to reproduce the underlying ratio as propounded.
HERO VINOTH V. SESHAMMAL (2006) 5 SCC 545 55.1 This judgement reaffirms that an easement of necessity Page 25 of 40 does not get extinguished merely because the dominant tenement holder subsequently acquires another alternative access route. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clarified that for easementary rights to be extinguished, mere existence of an alternative way is not a ground -- the necessity must fully cease, and the easement should become redundant altogether. The Court also addressed substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC and reiterated that, unless the findings of the lower courts suffer from perversity or error of law, interference is unwarranted SREE SWAYAM PRAKASH ASHRAMAM V. G. ANANDAVALLY AMMA (AIR 2010 SC 622) 55.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, upholding Trial Court findings, held that easements may arise by implied grant, inferred from longstanding conduct and user. The Court observed that if parties' conduct and the surrounding circumstances reasonably point to an implied grant for convenient enjoyment, such easement should be judicially recognized. In this case, uninterrupted use of a pathway over decades, and absence of alternative access, supported an inference of implied grant -- even absent express documentation.
The judgement highlights that the law presumes an easement's grant in favour of beneficial enjoyment when Page 26 of 40 continuous use is established and not objected to by original owners.
DR. S. KUMAR & ORS. VS S. RAMALINGAM (2020) 16 SCC
553. 55.3 In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clarified that where an easement is explicitly granted via sale deed, it cannot be extinguished merely because the necessity ceases. The judgement distinguished between easement by necessity and easement by explicit grant, ruling that only the former may expire with the cessation of necessity, whereas an expressly granted easement continues to subsist unless legally revoked by mutual consent or on specific statutory grounds MAHENDRA GALA & ORS. V. RAMANI'S (2024 INSC 293) 55.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India conducted strict scrutiny regarding claims to easementary rights over a pathway ("rasta"). It held that for a transferee to claim an easement right, the transferor or predecessor-in-title must have acquired or perfected such right. In this case, the Gala's could not establish that their predecessor had acquired, possessed, or transferred any easementary right over the disputed pathway; mere recitals in a Page 27 of 40 sale deed or reliance on possession without legal evidence fall short. Further, photocopies of sale deeds were found inadmissible unless original evidence was produced. The Court emphasized that easementary rights cannot be claimed or enforced against third parties without concrete basis in law or deed DECISION:
56. At this juncture, it is imperative to go back the basic tenets of the law.
Essentials of pleadings A pleading should -
(a) state material facts and not the evidence on which the party seeks to rely on,
(b) state such facts in a concise form, and
(c) provide all particulars where they are required.
57. These conditions are contained in Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC, and the requirement to state all material facts has time and again been emphasized by the Supreme Court. For instance, in Udhav Singh v Madhav Rao Scindia AIR 1976 SC 744, wherein it was clarified that all the primary facts which must be proved at Page 28 of 40 the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are material facts.
58. The failure to disclose material facts can even attract the grave consequence of the suit being dismissed in its entirety, making the observations of the Supreme Court in Virender Nath v. Satpal Singh 2007 (3) SCC 617 pivotal:
"...it is however absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish existence of a cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleadings by the party."
UDHAV SINGH V. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 744:
"28. All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are "material facts". In the context of a charge of corrupt practice, "material facts" would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election-petition, a particular fact is material or not, and as such required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the nature of the charge leveled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case. In short, all Page 29 of 40 those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action, are "material facts" which must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of sec. 83(1)(a). "Particulars", on the other hand, are "the details of the case set up by the party".
"Material particulars" within the contemplation of clause (b) of s. 83(i) would therefore mean all the details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embellish the material facts already pleaded in the petition in compliance with the requirements of clause (a). Particulars serve the purpose of finishing touches to the basic contours of a picture already drawn, to make it full, more detailed and more informative.
29. The distinction between material facts and material particulars" was pointed out by this Court in several cases, three of which have been cited at the bar. It is not necessary to refer to all of them. It will be sufficient to close the discussion by extracting what A. N. Ray J. (as he then was) said on this point in Hardwari Lals case (supra):
"It is therefore vital that the corrupt practice charged against the respondent should be a full and complete statement of material facts to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action and to give an equal and full opportunity to the respondent to meet the case and to de fend the charges. Merely, alleging that the Page 30 of 40 respondent obtained or procured or attempted to obtain or procure assistance are extracting words from the statute which will have no meaning unless and until facts are stated to show what that assistance is and how the prospect of election is furthered by such assistance. In the present case, it was not even alleged that the assistance obtained or procured was other than the giving of vote. It was said by counsel for the respondent that because the statute did not render the giving of vote a corrupt practice the words "any assistance" were full statement of material fact. The submission is fallacious for the simple reason that the manner of assistance, the measure of assistance are all various aspects of fact to clothe the petition with a cause of action which will call for an answer. Material facts are facts which if established would give the petitioner the relief asked for. If the respondent had not appeared, could the court have given a verdict in favour of the election petitioner. The answer is in the negative because the allegations in the petition did not disclose any cause of action."
59. Facta probanda or the facts required to be proved, are the foundational elements of any legal claim or defense. These are the material facts upon which a party bases their case. In simple terms, these are the "what" of the case ie the core allegations or assertions that a party needs to establish to succeed.
Page 31 of 40For example, based on the facts of the present case, in a breach of contract claim, the facta probanda might include:
The existence of a contract.
The obligations stipulated by the contract.
The breach of those obligations by the opposing party.
The resultant damages incurred due to the breach.
The facts are to be proved in accordance with the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act (as amended upto date/ BSA 2023) which have been reproduced herein;
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Relevant Provisions:
101. Burden of proof.
Whoever desires any Court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Page 32 of 40Illustrations
(a)A desires a Court to give judgement that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.
(b)A desires a Court to give judgement that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts and which B denies, to be true. A must prove the existence of those facts.
102. On whom burden of proof lies.
The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
Illustrations
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A.
103. Burden of proof as to any particular fact.
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
Page 33 of 40104. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.
The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence.
Illustrations
(a)A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B. A must prove B's death.
(b)A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of a lost document. A must prove that the document has been lost.
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations
(a)When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b)A is charged with travelling in a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
Page 34 of 4060. The essentials of easement as per law, primarily governed by the Indian Easements Act, 1882, and elaborated by case law, are as follows:
Dominant and Servient Tenement: There must be two distinct pieces of land owned by different persons -- the dominant tenement (benefiting land) and the servient tenement (land subject to the easement).
Accommodation of Dominant Tenement: The easement must accommodate or benefit the dominant tenement, meaning it must be connected with its enjoyment and use.
Right Held for Good Enjoyment: The right must be held for the purpose of the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant tenement.
Distinct Ownership: The dominant and servient tenements must be owned by different persons; easements cannot exist if both are owned by the same person.
Continuous or Discontinuous Enjoyment: Easements may be continuous (like a natural water flow) or discontinuous (requiring human action, like a right of way).
Positive or Negative Rights: The easement may be a positive right (entitling the dominant owner to do something on the servient land) or a negative right (preventing the servient owner from doing Page 35 of 40 something).
Capability of Grant: The right should be capable of being granted and must be definite and clear.
No Transfer of Possession: An easement does not grant ownership or possession of the servient land, just limited rights to use it.
61. These essentials ensure that the easement rights are legally recognized and enforceable for the benefit of the dominant tenement without unduly infringing upon the servient tenement owner's rights.
62. It is apposite to observe that the documents strongly support the plaintiff's case of declaration, injunction, right to easement. The evidence favors issuance of a declaration thereby granting rights to the plaintiff to use and enjoy the 'subject land' i.e. the passage connecting the main road with the property of the plaintiff coupled with restraining the defendants, and injuncting them from interfering with the said rights.
63. The plaintiff has also led satisfactory evidence, and has discharged its burden/ onus.
64. Thus, based on the written submissions and evidence detailed in the document, the plaintiff's case appears legally and factually well-founded, entitling it to the reliefs of declaration, injunction, and right to use the said passage way, to the exclusion Page 36 of 40 of others.
65. The suit of the plaintiff presents a persuasive case for this Courts intervention to restore the rule of law, protect inviolate property rights, and provide amenable remedies for the grievous wrongs alleged.
66. After a careful perusal of the facts, circumstances of the matter coupled with the pleadings, evidence, submissions and the corresponding law relied upon by the parties, this Court is inclined to give its issue wise findings as follows:
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of decree of declaration as prayed for?OPP
67. Issue no.1 is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 to 4. It is hereby declared that the plaintiff, its associates, agents, employees, members, etc have easementary rights, the right to use the 'passage way' shown in the site plan, and the report of the Ld. Court Commissioner for the purpose of usage, ingress-egress, entry-exit being as the said passage way/ path is the only available path connecting the property of the plaintiff with the main road i.e. agricultural land measuring 6 Bigha 14 Biswa, comprised in Mustatil No.18, Killa No.2 Min (1-5), 9 Min (1-17), 12 Min (3-12), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jonapur, Page 37 of 40 Tehsil-Mehrauli, Tehsil-Mehrauli, New Delhi.
(2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of Perpetual, Prohibitory, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction as prayed for?OPP
68. Issue no.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 1 to 4. The defendants no.1 to 4, their agents and all persons acting through or for them are hereby permanently and perpetually injuncted, restrained from trespassing, encroaching, interfering, or otherwise harming the property or easement rights of the plaintiff in any manner in regards to using the passage way/ path for entry-exit, usage, ingress-egress, access, and other purposes pertaining the subject property, and the subject matter of the present suit. The order dated 18.08.2025 is confirmed to the same effect.
(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages as claimed for?OPP
69. Issue no.3 was liable to be answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. However, since the defendants are unknown, and have not entered appearance, no effective decree of damages can be passed. The plaintiff has also not provided a Page 38 of 40 computation in regards to the damages claimed. Without prejudice and with liberty to the rights and contentions of the plaintiff, at this stage this Court is not inclined to grant damages in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Relief
70. The plaintiff is held entitled to the reliefs as mentioned above.
71. Accordingly, a decree of declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 to 4 that the plaintiff, its associates, agents, employees, members, etc have easementary rights, the right to use the 'passage way' shown in the site plan, and the report of the Ld. Court Commissioner for the purpose of usage, ingress-egress, entry-exit being as the said passage way/ path is the only available path connecting the property of the plaintiff with the main road i.e. agricultural land measuring 6 Bigha 14 Biswa, comprised in Mustatil No.18, Killa No.2 Min (1-5), 9 Min (1-17), 12 Min (3-12), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jonapur, Tehsil-Mehrauli, Tehsil-Mehrauli, New Delhi.
72. Further, a decree of perpetual, prohibitory, permanent and mandatory injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and Page 39 of 40 against the defendants no. 1 to 4. The defendants no.1 to 4, their agents and all persons acting through or for them are hereby permanently and perpetually injuncted, restrained from trespassing, encroaching, interfering, or otherwise harming the property or easement rights of the plaintiff in any manner in regards to using the passage way/ path for entry-exit, usage, ingress-egress, access, and other purposes pertaining the subject property, and the subject matter of the present suit. The order dated 18.08.2025 is confirmed to the same effect.
73. Suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and disposed of in the above terms.
74. No order as to costs.
75. Decree sheet be drawn up as per rules.
76. File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the judgment be given Dasti.
Announced in the open court on 16.10.2025.
(Sunil Beniwal)
District Judge-06(South),
Digitally signed
by Sunil
Sunil beniwal
beniwal Date:
Saket Courts, New Delhi
2025.10.17
11:44:26 +0530
Page 40 of 40