Supreme Court Ruling: Easement Denied in the Face of Alternative Access Routes

In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court delivered a resounding statement on the acquisition of easementary rights, firmly establishing that such rights cannot be claimed when alternative routes to access the property exist. The case, centered on the dispute between Manisha Mahendra Gala and Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani, illuminated critical legal principles surrounding easements.

The court’s ruling hinged on the interpretation of Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, which outlines the conditions under which easementary rights by necessity may be granted. According to the Act, such rights can only be established if they are deemed necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant heritage – the property owned by the claimant.

The justices, comprising the bench led by Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra, underscored the distinction between the “Dominant Heritage” and the “Servient Heritage.” The former represents the land to be enjoyed by the beneficiary, while the latter refers to the land over which easementary rights are claimed.

In their meticulous analysis, the court emphasized that easementary rights by necessity would only arise if no alternative means of accessing the dominant heritage were available. Crucially, the existence of an alternative route, albeit potentially longer or less convenient, would invalidate the grounds for claiming an easement of necessity.

The judgment, authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal, meticulously dissected the legal framework governing easements, leaving no room for ambiguity. By establishing the necessity criterion as central to the acquisition of easementary rights, the court clarified the parameters within which such claims could be considered.

Ultimately, the court’s decision to deny easementary rights to the claimant underscored the importance of adherence to legal principles and precedent. With this ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the integrity of property rights while providing clarity on the nuanced intricacies of easement law.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [319.09 KB]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Scroll to Top