Easementary Rights Cannot Be Claimed Over Private Passage If Alternative Access Exists and Prescription Is Unproven

The Plaintiff (Respondent) resides in House No. 8, situated in Khasra No. 277, Devli Village. His family carved out a private passage (12–14 feet wide) from their own land in Khasra No. 277 for ingress and egress

The Defendant (Appellant) owns House No. 1/1 in the adjacent Khasra No. 276. This house originally had its entrance opening into a separate, narrower passage to the West and its rear wall abutting the Plaintiff’s private passage

On 23.03.2012, the Defendant demolished part of his back wall to open an iron gate into the Plaintiff’s passage and allegedly began tethering cattle there, creating a nuisance

The Trial Court initially dismissed the Plaintiff's suit for injunction, holding that the Plaintiff failed to prove exclusive ownership

However, the First Appellate Court (ADJ) reversed this, decreeing the suit in favor of the Plaintiff

The Defendant subsequently filed this Second Appeal.

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from opening a gate into a private passage carved out of Khasra No. 277

2. What are the legal rights of adjoining house owners in a private passage in terms of the Indian Easements Act, 1882

Section 4 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, which defines 'Easement', 'Dominant Heritage' (the land enjoyed), and 'Servient Heritage' (the land burdened)

Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, governing easements of necessity and quasi-easements, which arise only when such access is essential for the enjoyment of the transferred or partitioned property

Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 regarding acquisition by prescription, requiring peaceable and open enjoyment of an easement without interruption for twenty years

The precedent of Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani (2024), which held that easementary rights cannot be claimed if an alternative access exists and the prescriptive period is not proven

The Court found that the suit passage was voluntarily carved out by the owners of Khasra No. 277 from their private land for their own beneficial enjoyment

Regarding the Defendant's claim, the Court noted that since the Defendant's property in Khasra No. 276 already possessed a separate, independent access lane, no "easement of necessity" under Section 13 could be claimed

Furthermore, the Defendant failed to establish an easement by prescription under Section 15; there was no evidence that the back gate existed or was used for the statutory period of 20 years

The Court determined that the Defendant's attempt to open a new door amounted to an encroachment upon the private property rights of the residents of Khasra No. 277

The fact that the lane contained public utilities like sewage lines did not transform the private passage into a public rasta

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Judgment of the First Appellate Court, affirming the Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant to close the iron gate and the Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from opening any future gates abutting the suit passage.