Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. A perusal of Ex.A1 would make it clear that A Schedule property was allotted to the share of Ponnusamy Gounder and he was given easement right to use 15 feet pathway. Therefore, it is clear that the predecessor of respondents' namely Ponnusamy Gounder was given easementary right of access over the suit pathway with 15 feet width. No right has been conferred on the said Ponnusamy Gounder to lay pipeline underneath the pathway . The said recitals in Ex.A1 is reiterated in Ex.A2 wherein the respondents' property was allotted to 1st respondent's vendor Subramaniyan. However, when Subramaniyan sold 15 cents property to the 1st respondent under Ex.A3 a recital has been included as if the vendee in the document, namely the first respondent was entitled to lay pipeline underneath the pathway. It is settled law that a person can convey only a right which he has and he cannot convey more right than what he had. Under Ex.A1 and A2, above said Ponnusamy Gounder and the vendor of respondents namely Subramaniyan got only easement right of access over the suit pathway. They were not given any right to lay water pipeline underneath the suit pathway. However in Ex.A3, subsequent document, Subramaniyan included a new right to the 1st https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent by including a recital as if the 1st respondent is entitled to lay pipeline underneath the suit pathway. Certainly, introduction of such recital in the subsequent document would amount to enlargement of the right of respondents' vendor, which is not permissible in law.

11. In this regard it would be appropriate to refer the decision of this Court in the case of K.Kolandaisami Gounder and others v. Manickam reported in 2001-3-L.W.832. The relevant observations of this Court in this regard read as follows;

"11.When the specific right was given to use the land of the defendant only as a pathway, the defendant cannot be burdened with more obligations, and the right given under Ex.A1 can be used to the extent necessary for such enjoyment by the other sharers. In the present case, except Ex.A2 to A4, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has not pointed out any other evidence to show as to how the 6ft. width of pathway is necessary for them to reach the street. As stated above, additional burden cannot be imposed on the defendant. In view of the fact that under Ex.A1, only a right of pathway has been given to the other settlees, from whom the plaintiff https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis derived title, the defendant cannot prevent the plaintiff from enjoying such right. But, at the same time, the respondent/plaintiff also cannot claim 6ft., width of pathway, which was not given under Ex.A1 settlement deed."