have failed to plead that since what date to which date plaintiffs are
using the land and also failed to plead that they are using the land
for last 30 years against the State/defendant. They have only
pleaded that they are using suit land for last 12 years. The
Supreme Court in the matter of Justiniano Antao and others v.
Bernadette B. Pereira (Smt.) (2005) 1 SCC 471S.A. No. 243 of 2016
, has clearly held that in order to
establish a right by way of prescription, there should be specific
pleading and categorical evidence in general and specifically held
in para 9 of the judgement as under:
“9. We have gone through the three judgments i.e. trial
court, first appellate court and that of the High Court. We
have gone through the evidence adduced. From this, it is
more than clear that there is no specific averment in the
plaint or in the statement of the witnesses showing that this
access from the land of the defendants was used as of right
for the last 20 years. The evidence very categorically shows
that the plaintiff has an access on the south east side and
this was being used by her for a long time. It was pointed
out that only in the year 1984 the plaintiff has started using
the access through the property of the defendants. It is also
admitted that the defendants were during that time on board
of ship and as soon as they came and saw the use of their
land by the plaintiff, they put obstructions to it. Therefore, it
is clear that it is not the case that the plaintiff has been using
the access as of right through the property of the defendants
for more than 20 years. Since the plaintiff has an access
through the southern side of her property we see no reason
why the property of other persons be used as an access to
her house. If the plaintiff had no access to her house except
through that of the property of the defendants then perhaps
we would have considered appreciating as easement of
necessity. But in order to establish a right by way of
prescription one has to show that the incumbent has been
using the land as of right peacefully and openly and without
any interruption for the last 20 years. There should be
categorical pleadings that since what date to which date one
is using the access for the last 20 years. In order to
establish the right of prescription to the detriment of the
other party, one has to aver specific pleadings and
categorical evidence. In the present case, after going
through the pleadings as well as the statement of the
witnesses it is more than clear that the plaintiff has failed to
establish that she has been using the access peacefully,
openly as of right for the last 20 years. More so we find that
material placed on record and especially the photographs
which have been exhibited and marked as Ext. D.W.3/A in
the court that there are two pillars showing the existence of
a gate in southern side but it has been closed down by
rubble stones. The defendants have put up a strong case
that the plaintiff has an opening in the southern side and it is
amply established that there exist two pillars showing the
existence of a gate which has been covered by rubble
stones in the southern side. It was also pleaded that the
plaintiff was using the same and it is only after 1984 she got
the gate constructed through the land of the defendants.
Therefore, on the basis of the evidence and statement of the
witnesses, we are satisfied that the first appellate court has
correctly approached the matter and the view taken by the
High Court as well as the trial court does not appear to be
based on correct appreciation of facts.
5. In the above referred to decision, their Lordships have held
that there should be categorical pleadings that since what date to
which date one is using the access for the last 20 years. In order
to establish an easement by way of prescription to the detriment of
the other party, one has to aver specific pleadings and lead
categorical evidence.
6. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs
failed to plead and prove the necessary ingredients to establish the
right of easement as required by Section 15 of the Indian
Easement Act and keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the concurrent finding of fact
recorded by both the Courts below is based on evidence available
on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. No
substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SA No. 243 of 2016
Rajendra Prasad Shukla
V
State Of Chhattisgarh
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Dated: 02/09/2016
Citation:AIR 2017(NOC) 70 chhatis
2. The plaintiffs herein filed a suit for declaration of title and
permanent injunction and claimed easementary right over the land
shown in the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the
plaintiffs have failed to plead and establish that they are using the suit
land for the last 30 years as prescribed in Section 15 of the Indian
Easement Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act'). The appellants filed an
appeal against the judgement and decree of the trial Court before
the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the
appeal against which Second Appeal under Section 100 of the
CPC has been preferred.
3. Mr. B.P. Sharma & Ms. Prachi Agrawal, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants have vehemently submit that
concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below held that the
plaintiffs have failed to plead and establish that easementary right
over the suit land is perverse finding and gives rise to substantial
question of law for admission of appeal.
4. A careful perusal of the plaint would show that the plaintiffs
have failed to plead that since what date to which date plaintiffs are
using the land and also failed to plead that they are using the land
for last 30 years against the State/defendant. They have only
pleaded that they are using suit land for last 12 years. The
Supreme Court in the matter of Justiniano Antao and others v.
Bernadette B. Pereira (Smt.) (2005) 1 SCC 471S.A. No. 243 of 2016
, has clearly held that in order to
establish a right by way of prescription, there should be specific
pleading and categorical evidence in general and specifically held
in para 9 of the judgement as under:
“9. We have gone through the three judgments i.e. trial
court, first appellate court and that of the High Court. We
have gone through the evidence adduced. From this, it is
more than clear that there is no specific averment in the
plaint or in the statement of the witnesses showing that this
access from the land of the defendants was used as of right
for the last 20 years. The evidence very categorically shows
that the plaintiff has an access on the south east side and
this was being used by her for a long time. It was pointed
out that only in the year 1984 the plaintiff has started using
the access through the property of the defendants. It is also
admitted that the defendants were during that time on board
of ship and as soon as they came and saw the use of their
land by the plaintiff, they put obstructions to it. Therefore, it
is clear that it is not the case that the plaintiff has been using
the access as of right through the property of the defendants
for more than 20 years. Since the plaintiff has an access
through the southern side of her property we see no reason
why the property of other persons be used as an access to
her house. If the plaintiff had no access to her house except
through that of the property of the defendants then perhaps
we would have considered appreciating as easement of
necessity. But in order to establish a right by way of
prescription one has to show that the incumbent has been
using the land as of right peacefully and openly and without
any interruption for the last 20 years. There should be
categorical pleadings that since what date to which date one
is using the access for the last 20 years. In order to
establish the right of prescription to the detriment of the
other party, one has to aver specific pleadings and
categorical evidence. In the present case, after going
through the pleadings as well as the statement of the
witnesses it is more than clear that the plaintiff has failed to
establish that she has been using the access peacefully,
openly as of right for the last 20 years. More so we find that
material placed on record and especially the photographs
which have been exhibited and marked as Ext. D.W.3/A in
the court that there are two pillars showing the existence of
a gate in southern side but it has been closed down by
rubble stones. The defendants have put up a strong case
that the plaintiff has an opening in the southern side and it is
amply established that there exist two pillars showing the
existence of a gate which has been covered by rubble
stones in the southern side. It was also pleaded that the
plaintiff was using the same and it is only after 1984 she got
the gate constructed through the land of the defendants.
Therefore, on the basis of the evidence and statement of the
witnesses, we are satisfied that the first appellate court has
correctly approached the matter and the view taken by the
High Court as well as the trial court does not appear to be
based on correct appreciation of facts.
5. In the above referred to decision, their Lordships have held
that there should be categorical pleadings that since what date to
which date one is using the access for the last 20 years. In order
to establish an easement by way of prescription to the detriment of
the other party, one has to aver specific pleadings and lead
categorical evidence.
6. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs
failed to plead and prove the necessary ingredients to establish the
right of easement as required by Section 15 of the Indian
Easement Act and keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the concurrent finding of fact
recorded by both the Courts below is based on evidence available
on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. No
substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal.
7. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath
Agrawal, S/o Sitaram Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal2
,
has held that High Court should not disturb the concurrent finding
of fact, unless finding recorded is perverse being based on no
evidence. Paras-36 & 37 of report as under:-
“36. In Major Singh Vs. Rattan Singh3
it has been
observed that when the Courts below had rejected and
2
(2012) 7 SCC 288
3
(1997) 3 SCC 546 : AIR 1997 SC 1906S.A. No. 243 of 2016
5
disbelieved the evidence on unacceptable grounds, it
is the duty of the High Court to consider whether the
reasons given by the Courts below are sustainable in
law while hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
37. In Vidhyadhan Vs. Manikrao4
it has been ruled
that the High Court in a second appeal should not
disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless it is
shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below
are perverse being based on no evidence or that on
the evidence on record no reasonable person could
have come to that conclusion. We may note here that
solely because another view is possible on the basis of
the evidence, the High Court would not be entitled to
exercise the jurisdictions under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. This view of ours has been
fortified by the decisions of this Court in Abdul
Raheem V. Karnataka Electricity Board5
.
8. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed at the motion stage.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
JUDGE
4
(1999) 3 SCC 573
5
(2007) 14 SCC 138 : AIR 2008 SC 956
No comments:
Post a Comment