P.v.Job v. Lucy Ittup
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court allowed one of three regular second appeals regarding prescription of easement. The court held that an alternate road does not defeat a prescription claim, found user to be as of right, and deemed limiting the easement width to 3 feet perverse given admitted vehicular use since 1982.
What did the court decide?
Regular Second Appeal No.1109 of 2012 allowed; defender declared to have easement over entire pathway width.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2016/27TH VAISAKHA, 1938
RSA.No. 1109 of 2012 ()
AS 72/2010 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS 632/2009 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF :
-----------------------------
P.V.JOB, S/O.LATE VARKEY,AGED 74 YEARS, POOTHULLIL HOUSE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH P.O., KANAYANNOOR TALUK.
BY ADVS.SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH
SRI.JOY GEORGE SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM SMT.TANYA JOY
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3/DEFENDANTS 2 & 3:
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the existence of an alternate public road negates a claim for easement by prescription over a pathway?
Whether the user of the pathway was as of right or merely by permission of the plaintiff?
Whether the appellate court was justified in limiting the width of the prescribed easement to 3 feet given admitted vehicular use since 1982?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
P.V. Job
- respondent
Lucy Ittup
- respondent
Anil Kumar
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court