Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In this case, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that a very claim by easement of prescription and necessity is inconsistent. When a claim is made on the basis of prescription, it must be as of right when there are other ways of ingress and exit, easement of necessity cannot be claimed.
vi) 1998-2-L.W.-147 (Mangayarkarasi Vs. Veerappan Ambalam and Others) wherein in Para-21 it was held thus:-
"21. Bearing the principles laid down by the several decisions referred to above, the whole question in the present case boils down to whether what was claimed by the respondents was an easement of necessity. The ratio of the decisions is to the effect that there must be absolute necessity. Convenience was not the test. No doubt, there need not be an expressed grant. The non-mentioning in the sale did not matter as long as a case for implied grant was made out. The Commissioner's Report and the plan show the lie of the land. The Commissioner has specifically mentioned about the absence of cart track in the suit property. He has also noticed that the respondents had access to the road along the eastern property...."
"8. From all these documents, Thiru. D. Ramaswami Iyengar stated, it is clear that there is an implied grant of easement over the 30-ft road. He cited Ratanchand Chordia v. Kasim Khaleel, 1964-I Mad LJ 293 = (AIR 1964 Mad 209), wherein a Bench of this Court has laid down the principles on which an implied grant can be inferred. The question whether a grant can be implied or not would only arise in a case where there is no express grant. To say the least the contention that the absence of an express grant would negative an implied grant is quite untenable. It is from attendant circumstances and other documentary evidence that an implied grant has to be inferred. It is a pity that the lower appellate court has not bestowed its attention before it disposed of the appeal, on the aspect of spelling out an implied grant, which is recognised by law."

In this case, it was held, following the decision in AIR 1964 Madras 209 that absence of express grant for an easement does not negative an implied grant of such easement. The question whether a grant can be implied or not would only arise where there is no express grant. It is from the attendant circumstances an d other documentary evidence that an implied grant has to be inferred.

ii) AIR 1989 KERALA 308 (Leela vs. Ambujakshy and Others) wherein in Para No.9 it was held thus:-

"8. ..... Even though there was no express grant or dedication, as soon as the defendant acted on the said representation by purchasing or taking lease of the plots for consideration the grant implicit in the representation came in existence. In the instant case, we have already seen that the disputed strip of land has been described as a new road in the documents and the evidence shows that there was specific representation by the vendor that the said strip of land was set apart as the common passage of the prospective buyers including the plaintiff and as a matter of fact the said passage was shown in a sketch map which the defendant is withholding. It must, therefore, he held that there was representation of grant of user of the disputed road even though there was no express grant or dedication. As soon as the plaintiffs acted on the said representation by purchasing the suit plots for consideration the grant implicit in the representation came into existence and the defendant claiming through the original vendor is, therefore, estopped from challenging the implied grant of user of the disputed strip of land."