Community customary rights are distinct from easements and exist in gross without requiring a dominant tenement.

The Petitioners (original Defendants 1 and 2) challenged a judgment of the District Court, Pune, which affirmed a trial court’s grant of temporary and mandatory injunctions in favor of the Respondents (villagers).

The Respondents filed a representative suit claiming a customary right to celebrate the ancient "Bagad festival" during Hanuman Jayanti on a 10 R portion of land (the suit property) situated in front of the Bhairavnath Paduka Mandir.

The Respondents alleged the festival had been celebrated for 400–500 years.

The Petitioners purchased the larger land parcel in 2022 and began excavation and construction of iron structures, which the Respondents claimed obstructed the customary ritual.

The trial court ordered the Petitioners to restore the status quo ante and restrained them from obstructing the festival.

1. Whether the right claimed by the villagers to celebrate a festival on private land constitutes a "customary easement" or a "customary right" in gross.

2. Whether the Respondents established a prima facie case regarding the antiquity, continuity, and certainty of the alleged custom.

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent discretionary orders of the lower courts under the limited supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court distinguished between "customary easements" under Section 4 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, and "customary rights" saved under Section 2(b) of the same Act.

While an easement requires a dominant tenement, a customary right is a right in gross belonging to a community.

To establish a valid custom, the Court applied the criteria from Ram Kanya Bai v. Jagdish, requiring the usage to be ancient, continuous, certain, and reasonable.

It further relied on Patneedi Rudrayya v. Velugubantla Venkayya to define "time immemorial" as a commencement shrouded in the mists of antiquity.

Sections 13, 48, and 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, were applied regarding the relevance of historical transactions and the opinions of persons likely to know of the custom.

The Court cited Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala to define the restrictive limits of Article 227 jurisdiction.

The Court observed that the Respondents asserted a "customary right" in gross for the village community rather than a customary easement, rendering the Petitioners’ arguments regarding the lack of a dominant tenement irrelevant.

The Court noted that in their initial reply to the injunction application, the Petitioners failed to specifically traverse (deny) the Respondents’ claims regarding the antiquity and traditional celebration of the Bagad festival.

Prima facie evidence, including a 1967 Sale Deed mentioning the land’s use and affidavits from members of the original owning family (the Murkutes), supported the existence of the custom under Sections 13 and 48 of the Evidence Act.

The Court found that photographs showing celebrations since 1998 and the physical location of the land in front of the temple reinforced the claim of long usage.

Consequently, the lower courts’ exercise of discretion was deemed based on objective material and not perverse.

The Court held that the Respondents successfully established a prima facie case for a customary right and that the Petitioners’ constitutional right to property was subject to such established customary claims.

To mitigate prejudice to the Petitioners’ ownership rights, the Court directed that the main suit (RCS No. 639 of 2024) be expedited.