Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for a declaration of the plaintiff's right of way 8 1/2 feet wide across the B Schedule property, admittedly belonging to defendants 1 to 8. The plaintiff claims the right of way as an easement by prescription. The defendants conceded the plaintiff's right of way along the pathway 5 feel in width. They denied the plaintiff's right of easement over an 8 1/2 feet wide pathway.

2. The trial Court found that the plaintiff has established the right of way as claimed in the plaint as an easement by prescription and decreed the suit as prayed for. The lower appellate Court has reversed the decision of the trial Court and has found that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that he had been using as of right the pathway 8 1/2 feet wide across the plaint B schedule property for the statutory period of twenty years. It is against this that the plaintiff has come up in second appeal.

"In any event, no evidence worthy of reliance has been let in the case to prove that the plaintiff had been using as of right an 8 1/2 ft. wide strip of land in the holding of defendants 1 to 8 for access to his house during a period of 20 years before suit without interruption. The suit has, therefore, to fail."

This is finding on a question of fact.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the lower appellate Court has failed to consider whether the width of the admitted pathway was 8 1/2, feet as claimed by the plaintiff. There can hardly be any doubt that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove a right of easement by prescription in derogation of the title of the defendants. In para 5 of the plaint he has alleged that he had been using the pathwway also for vehicular traffic. The appellate Court has found that the vehicular traffic alleged was only for period much shorter than the prescriptive period required under the Easements Act. For this reason the appellate Court was not prepared to accept the plaintiff's case that he had acquired the right of way 8 1/2 feet in width by prescription. The plaintiff's right of way 5 feet in width is conceded by the defendants. Even though the question that required consideration by the appellate Court was in respect of the width of the pathway that the plaintiff has acquired by prescription, the appellate Court has considered the question of its user by the plaintiff and it has found that he has not established the user of the pathway for vehicular traffic for the prescriptive period and hence the pathway is not of such width as claimed in the plaint. May be that a different inference on facts is possible on the evidence in the case, but that is hardly a ground for interference in second appeal after its amendment by Act 104 of 1976.