The Madras High Court has affirmed that an easement by grant, created through explicit recitals in a title deed, persists even if an alternative pathway becomes available; such rights are permanent unless expressly limited by the grant itself. This judgment upholds established precedent, clarifies the difference between “easement by grant” and “easement of necessity,” and will serve as binding authority for issues relating to extinguishment of easements in property litigation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/1175/2019 of PALANICHAMY Vs SUBRAMANIAM |
| CNR | HCMA012087912019 |
| Date of Registration | 27-11-2019 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent for subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu |
| Type of Law | Property Law, Easementary Rights |
| Questions of Law | Whether an easement by grant is extinguished if an alternative access becomes available. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that an easement by grant, established by documentary evidence and explicit recitals in title deeds (Ex.B1, Ex.B3), is a permanent right and does not get automatically extinguished simply because an alternate pathway becomes available; this is distinct from easement of necessity, which ends with cessation of necessity. Rights by grant continue unless the grant itself specifies a condition for their termination. The existence of an alternative pathway, therefore, does not nullify a pathway established by express grant. The suit for permanent injunction was rightly dismissed as the defendants’ use was founded on an easement by grant and no substantial question of law arose. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | AIR 1999 Kerala 405; (2002) 6 SCC 404 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The distinction between easement by grant and easement of necessity under Sections 13, 15, 41, and 42 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. Court interpreted the express recitals in title deeds, holding that only easement of necessity gets extinguished with cessation of necessity (Section 41), not easement by grant. Examined Commissioners’ report and parties’ admissions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from using pathway through suit property, claiming sole ownership. Defendants claimed and established right of passage through explicit grants in title deeds. Trial and appellate courts dismissed plaintiff’s suit, leading to second appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially concerning interpretation of easement by grant |
| Follows | AIR 1999 Kerala 405 (distinction between easement by grant and necessity discussed) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and clarifies the legal distinction: “easement by grant” is not extinguished simply because a new or better access route exists; it persists as per the terms of the original grant.
- Affirms that only “easement of necessity” is extinguished when necessity ceases (see Section 41 of Indian Easements Act, 1882).
- Lawyers must carefully examine recitals in sale/settlement deeds to ascertain the nature of easement claimed.
- In a suit for injunction by the servient owner, relief cannot be claimed against an express easement by grant unless the grant is specifically shown to terminate.
- The judgment can be cited to counter arguments that the emergence of alternate access automatically terminates older granted pathways.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analyzed the sale/settlement deeds (Ex.B1, Ex.B3) and held that the pathway right claimed by defendants is an “easement by grant,” established by explicit language in title documents.
- It distinguished easement by grant from easement of necessity, emphasizing that only necessity-based easements end when necessity ceases (S.41, Easements Act, 1882), while “by grant” easements remain unless the grant says otherwise.
- The plaintiff’s argument that the existence of a new pathway extinguished the old one was expressly rejected. Court held that a grant is contractual and not subject to automatic extinction due to change in circumstances.
- The argument that an easementary right cannot be adjudicated in a suit for injunction was considered, but the court observed that the nature of the right was foundational to the relief sought.
- There was no perversity or misreading of evidence by lower courts; therefore, no substantial question of law arose, as required for second appeals under Section 100 CPC.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Plaintiff/Appellant)
- Plaintiff is the lawful owner, title and possession proved.
- Defendants must prove existence of easement, either by necessity or prescription; burden not discharged.
- No easement adjudication permissible in a simple suit for injunction without counter-claim.
- No right granted in the relevant title deeds (Ex.B1/B3).
- Any easement of necessity was extinguished when alternative pathway became available (Sections 41 & 42, Easements Act).
- Relief sought for setting aside lower court judgments for errors of law and evidence appreciation.
Respondents (Defendants)
- Ex.B1 and Ex.B3 expressly mention and grant right of passage; not a floating easement.
- Used the disputed pathway for decades; right is established and permanent.
- Plaintiff’s challenge is unsustainable; Courts below correctly found no ground for injunction.
Factual Background
The plaintiff claimed ownership and exclusive possession of the suit property, including a pathway, and sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from using it as access. Defendants contended that they, and their predecessors, had used a three-foot-wide pathway through the property for over 55 years, their right supported by explicit recitals in their title deeds. Both the trial and appellate courts found for the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, prompting the second appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 13, 15, 41, 42 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882: Interpreted to distinguish “easement by grant” from “easement of necessity” and to determine conditions of extinguishment.
- Section 41, Easements Act: Extinguishment of easement of necessity when necessity ceases — court held this does not apply to easements by grant.
- Order 8 Rule 6-A, CPC: Discussed regarding counter-claim for declaration of easementary right, found not material since the right was established by grant.
- Examined implications of grant via deed, holding that only grant conditions can terminate such easements.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms settled law regarding distinction between easement by grant and easement of necessity; no new law created or precedent overruled.