Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

and (4) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, her agent, servants from interfering with the easementary right of pathway on the defendant's property marked "ZYXT" in the Schedule 'B'.

4. Door Nos. 19 and 20 belonged to the defendant's father. It is seen that defendant's mother filed a suit for maintenance against her husband, and, for recovering the amount due to her, door No. 19 was attached and sold in court-auction. The same was purchased by a stranger from whom plaintiffs have purchased in the year 1958. The sale deed is dated 21.11.1958. It is the case of plaintiffs that Door Nos. 19 and 20 are both situated on the eastern side of Pillayar Koil Street, and on the northern side, is Jones Road. Even though the plaintiffs have got access to their residential house from Pillayar Koil Street, for the scavengers, the access is through Jones Road. It is averred in the plaint that passage is being used by plaintiffs and their predecessors for more than 16 years. This was obstructed by defendant by putting up a construction, it is their case that the width of the passage is 4 ft., 67 inches. But, by putting up a construction, width of the same has now been reduced to 3 ft. 6 inches. Plaintiffs wanted the defendants to be restrained by an injunction from further reducing the width of the pathway and also to declare their right of easement in respect of the entire 4 ft., 6 inches of passage. It is their case that scavengers cannot be allowed to enter through the residential portion of the building, and the passage form the northern road was being used not only by the plaintiff, but even by the sub-tenants who were occupying portions of the building. It is an easement of necessity and, therefore, the reliefs sought for have to be granted.

6. Regarding easement of necessity, trial court has considered the same in paragraph 15 of the judgment. Trial court ground that even though the plaintiffs allege that the width of the pathway is 4 feet 6 inches, there is no evidence regarding the actual width, to which plaintiffs are entitled. At the time when the Commissioner visited the property, the width of the pathway was only 3 ft., 6 inches. Regarding the passage having 3 ft., 6 inches, trial court found that even though under Ex.A-4, the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs, it is not stated anything about the right of easement, plaintiffs will have a right over the same if that right was being exercised by their predecessor also. The trial court further took note of the evidence of D.W.2 that the second plaintiff and her predecessors were using the pathway. The trial court further found that scavengers cannot be permitted to go through the residential portion of the building. Therefore, it is an easement of necessity, and granted an injunction restraining the defendant from causing any obstruction to the pathway having a width of 3 ft., 6 inches.