Express easement by grant in a sale deed warrants interlocutory mandatory injunction for right of way.

The Petitioner (original defendant) owns agricultural land in Survey No. 401, adjacent to the Respondent’s (original plaintiff) land in Survey No. 400.

The Respondent filed a suit (RCS No. 51/2021) seeking a declaration and mandatory injunction for a right of way through Survey No. 401 based on a handwritten recital in the Sale Deed dated 06.04.2018, which expressly granted a "Bullock Cart Way" for the Respondent’s benefit.

The Petitioner contended the recital was incorporated under coercion.

A Court Commissioner’s report noted a pedestrian way existed but was insufficient for bullock carts.

The Trial Court rejected the Respondent’s application for temporary injunction on 27.06.2022.

However, the Appellate Court reversed this on 11.03.2025, granting the injunction to remove obstructions.

The Petitioner challenged the reversal in the High Court.

1. Whether a right of way created through an express recital in a Sale Deed constitutes an "easement by grant" that entitles the claimant to a temporary injunction regardless of alternate access.

2. Whether the Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the discretionary order of the Trial Court.

3. Whether the grant of an interlocutory mandatory injunction was justified to balance the competing interests of agricultural cultivation versus the loss of standing trees.

The Court applied the Indian Easements Act, 1882, specifically Sections 12 and 13, distinguishng between easements of necessity and easements by grant.

It relied on the precedent in Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal (2006) 5 SCC 545, which establishes that an easement by grant is a matter of contract and does not extinguish even if an alternate way becomes available, unlike an easement of necessity under Section 41.

The Court also applied the principles for temporary injunctions (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss) and the standard for appellate interference with discretionary orders as discussed in UTO Nederland B.V. v. Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.

The Court reasoned that the handwritten recital in the Sale Deed, counter-signed by the parties, prima facie established an "easement by grant".

Following Hero Vinoth, the Court held that since this was a contractual arrangement, the Respondent was entitled to the bullock cart way as specified.

Regarding the Trial Court's discretion, the High Court found that the Appellate Court is empowered to interfere if the discretion was improperly exercised or based on a misreading of evidence, such as the Commissioner's report.

On the "three pillars" of injunction, the Court found a strong prima facie case in the deed recital.

The balance of convenience favored the Respondent; without the way, he could not cultivate his land, whereas the Petitioner’s loss (cutting 21 Mosambi trees) could be adequately compensated by money.

The Court characterized the relief as an interlocutory mandatory injunction, deemed necessary to give effect to the grant during the suit's pendency.

The Court modified the order to balance equities: (1) The Petitioner must provide the bullock cart way through Survey No. 401, choosing a route that minimizes tree cutting; (2) The Respondent must pay the Petitioner ₹25,000 within four weeks as compensation for the lost trees and submit an undertaking to pay further damages if proven at trial.

The observations regarding coercion remain subject to final adjudication in the suit.