Allowed

Ramanathan. v. Singaram S/O Narayanasamy

Madras HC22 Nov 2018SA/1532/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding easementary rights to a rural pathway, the High Court set aside lower appellate verdicts refusing access. The court held that documentary proof of a varapu is unnecessary where lands are adjacent, granting the appellant access for agricultural purposes but denying a claim for a cart track.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgments and decrees are set aside; the appellant is entitled to use the existing varapu for reaching his land to cultivate it peacefully.

Ramanathan. Vs Singaram S/O Narayanasamy — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.11.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

S.A.No.1532 of 1999

¶6

Ramanathan ...Appellant/Plaintiff

¶7

Vs 1.Singaram 2.Gundumani (A) Selvaraj ,Family Manager ... Respondents/Defendants

¶8

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 29/01/1996 made in A.S.No.62/92 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur confirming the judgment and decree dated 27/08/1991 made in O.S.No.446/86 on the file of the District Munsiff, Jayamkondam.

¶9

For Appellants :Mr.A.Thiyagarajan for Mr.M.Nallathambi For Respondents:Mr.S.Parthasarathy for R1 JUDGMENT

¶10

The present second appeal on hand is filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.62/1992, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.446/1986.

¶11

2.The parties are referred as per the ranking in the Trial Court.

¶12

3.The plaintiff is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff filed Original Suit in O.S.No.446/1986 for easementary rights in respect of the pathway in existence to reach his agricultural land for irrigation purposes. The plaintiff states that he is the absolute owner of the land in Survey No.465/1 and the extent of the land is 0.67.0 Are. Northern side of the land belongs to the petitioner. The land belongs to the defendant is situated in Survey No.461.

¶13

4.The grievances of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the defendant is not permitting him to use the pathway / varapu /ridges for the purpose of reaching https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his land situated in Survey No.465/1. In view of the

¶14

fact, there was a restraint on the side of the defendant, the plaintiff was constrained to file a civil suit, claiming easementary rights.

¶15

5.The Trial Court formulated the issues, stating that whether the map submitted by the plaintiff is right or not and whether defendant has restrained the plaintiff from using the pathway for the purpose of reaching the land belongs to the plaintiff for irrigation. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not established that he has got a right of easementary in respect of the pathway shown in the map enclosed along with the plaint. In other words, the plaintiff has not substantiated his claim by submitting documents and by adducing evidences and accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed First appeal in A.S.No.62/1992. The First Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court by holding that the plaintiff had not established his right of easementary as warranted under Law. Thus, the suit was dismissed by the First Appellate Court also.

¶16

6.The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, mainly contended that there cannot be any documentary proof in respect of the easementary right in view of the fact that it is a pathway / varapu /ridges for the purpose of reaching the land belongs to the plaintiff. There is no possibility of producing any document to show that such a pathway was under the usage of all the persons for many years. However, the plaintiff has adduced evidence by stating that the said passage was in usage by all concerned and more specifically by plaintiff for reaching his own agricultural land. Beyond such deposition, the plaintiff may not be in a position to produce any document or any easementary rights. Since in villages, the usage of varapu is a common phenomena and when the land belongs to the plaintiff is situated adjacent to the defendant, that is sufficient to establish that the pathway must be provided for the purpose of reaching the land for irrigation.

¶17

7.The factum regarding the adjacent lands are established by plaintiff before the Trial Court, which was not disputed by the defendant. In other words, the land belongs to the plaintiff is situated in Survey No.465/1 and the land belongs to the defendant is situated in Survey No.461. When both the lands are situated adjacently, then it goes without saying that there must be a pathway to reach the land belongs to the plaintiff. When this basic facts are established by way of pleadings and by way of adducing oral evidences, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court ought https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not to have dismissed the suit in entirety.

¶18

8.The learned senior counsel further made a submission that the plaintiff is not claiming any cart track or road for the purpose of reaching his agricultural land, the claim of the plaintiff is only for the usage of pathway / varapu for the purpose of reaching his land to cultivate the land owned by him. Therefore, the very approach adopted by the Sub-Ordinate Courts are contrary to the basic principles of law.

¶19

9.The learned senior counsel emphatically said that in such circumstances, documentary proofs are practically impossible and the parties, who are claiming easementary rights of using the pathway to reach their agricultural lands has to be ascertained only with reference to the place of the land owned by the respective parties. When the lands owned by plaintiff and the defendant are situated adjacently, then both the parties are entitled to use the pathway for common purposes and more specifically, to cultivate their respective lands peacefully.

¶20

10.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents though disputed all other contentions, had not disputed the fact that the land belongs to the plaintiff is situated adjacent to the land belongs to the defendant. The learned counsel for the respondents is more on the emphasis that the plaintiff was claiming cart track for the purpose of reaching his land, which cannot be provided in the absence of establishing any easementary rights to that extent. The defendant is not restraining the plaintiff from using the varapu for the purpose of reaching his land. However, the defendant is objecting the usage of the common pathway as cart track or as a road for the purpose of reaching the land belongs to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is permitted to utilize the pathway / varapu for the purpose of reaching his own agricultural land. There cannot be any serious objections on the side of the defendants also.

¶21

11.In view of the said submission, this Court is able to arrive a conclusion that the pathway / varapu, which is already in existence for the purpose of reaching the land belongs to the plaintiff is to be kept open for his usage and more specifically, to reach his agricultural lands. However, it is made clear that the plaintiff cannot claim any cart track or road for the purpose of reaching his agricultural land. The plaintiff is entitled to utilize the existing varapu / ridges for the purpose of reaching his land and to carry on his agricultural activities. Such an order is passed in the interest of both the parties concerned. In view of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fact that the appellant has established before this Court

¶22

that he owns a land adjacent to the land belongs to the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to use the pathway / varapu for the purpose of reaching his land to carry on his agricultural activities peacefully and without any hindrance. The defendants also shall not cause any objections for the purpose of usage of varapu by the plaintiff for the purpose of reaching his land.

¶23

12.In this view of the matter, the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Ordinate Court, Ariyalur dated 29.01.1996 in A.S.No.62/1992, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsiff, Jayamkondam dated 27.08.1991 passed in O.S.No.446/1986 are set aside and the second appeal stands allowed to the extent stated above. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Co)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pns/kak
To
1. The District Munsiff,
Jayamkondam.
2. The Subordinate Judge,
Ariyalur.
+1cc to Mr.S.Parthasarathy , Advocate SR.No. 79892
+1cc to Mr.M.Nallathambi , Advocate SR.No. 79416
Copy to
The section officer,
VR Section,
High court
Madras
S.A.No.1532 of 1999
A.SK(01/02/2019)

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ramanathan. v. Singaram S/O Narayanasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanathan. v. Singaram S/O Narayanasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kappomma Gounder and Vs Rangasamy Gounder

Vs Bomma Naicker

Peria Bomma Naicker Vs Bomma Naicker

Nawab Masjith Trust, Vs R.Narayanan

Kalyani Vs R.Perumal

Pappu Alias Pavayee(died) Vs K.P. Ramasamy(died)