Bombay High Court
Shri.Jinvandhar Padamanna Savale vs Jaysing Hirasing Rajaput on 24 January, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2024:BHC-AS:4758
8-SA-221-2017.doc
Harish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.221 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.517 OF 2017
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.221 OF 2017
Shri.Jinvandhar Padamanna Savale & Ors. ...Appellants/
Applicants
Versus
Jaysing Hirasing Rajaput ...Respondent
--------------------
Mr. Vijay Killedar for the Appellants/Applicants.
Mr. Padmanabh D. Pise and Ms. Sejal A. Hariya for the Respondent.
---------------------
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : JANUARY 24, 2024
P. C. :
1. Heard.
2. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 30th July, 2016
dismissing the Appeal thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree of
the Trial Court dated 31st January, 2014 in Regular Civil Suit No. 28 of
1998, the original Defendants are before this Court.
3. Regular Civil Suit No. 28 of 1998 was instituted by the Plaintiff
for perpetual injunction, declaration of easementary right and mandatory
8-SA-221-2017.doc
injunction seeking removal of the obstruction obstructing the Plaintiff
from use of the suit way. The case of the Plaintiff was that Gut No 288
was the ancestral property of the Plaintiff's predecessor Narsingh and the
predecessor of the Defendant's vendor Hirasingh. That there was
partition prior to 80 years and Narsingh was allotted 1 H.07 Are eastern
portion of the property and Hirasingh was allotted 1H 22 Are western
portion of the property. That subsequently the share allotted to Hirasingh
was sold to the Defendants by Kisansingh - son of Hirasingh. That the
Plaintiffs were using the road situated on western side of the property
allotted to them since last 80 years and there is no other access road. That,
after the suit was filed the Defendants for the purpose of erasing the
existence of the road used by the Plaintiffs planted coconut trees and has
constructed wall near the Well to obstruct the Plaintiff.
4. The Defendants resisted the suit denying the case of the Plaintiff
that there was a 10 ft. road which was being used by the Plaintiff for
accessing his property. It was contended that there was a partition between
Plaintiffs predecessor and the Defendants vendor's predecessor. That in
the year 1984, the Defendants have dug a Well in their property and on
the southern side of the Well the Defendants have planted about 11
coconut trees and on the western side about 14 coconut trees in the year
1984 and the distance between the plantation and the well is about 4ft. to
8-SA-221-2017.doc
5ft. The assertion of the Defendant was that, there was no road in
existence as claimed by the Plaintiff.
5. The parties went to trial and the Trial Court answered the issues in
the affirmative as regards the existence of the road and the declaration of
easement of necessity. However, the relief of mandatory injunction as
regards the removal of obstruction was rejected, as against which the
Defendants preferred Appeal No. 20 of 2014 which came to be rejected.
6. Heard, Mr. Vijay Killedar, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr. Padmanabh Pise, learned counsel for the Respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the relief of
mandatory injunction was rejected and as such, decree itself would be
unexecutable. He would submit that there is perversity in findings of the
Trial Court inasmuch as the witness of the Plaintiff has not supported the
case of the Plaintiff. He would further submit that factual position at the
site being admitted the decree in question at the most would be rendered
a paper decree and would be unexecutable.
8. Considered the submissions and perused the record.
9. The Trial Court based on the evidence on record has held that the
Plaintiff has established his case of easement of necessity. It is not disputed
before this Court also that there was a partition of the property pursuant
8-SA-221-2017.doc
to which predecessor of the Plaintiffs were put in possession of the eastern
portion of the property and the predecessors of the Defendant's vendors
were put in possession of western side of the property. It is also not
disputed that for the purpose of access, the approach road to the Plaintiff's
property through the Defendant's property. However, what is sought to be
submitted that the Plaintiff's property can be accessed through the
boundary of the Defendant's property. The Trial Court has rightly noted
the ingredients of Section 13(e) and (f) of the Easements Act, which
provides that where a partition is made of the joint property of several
persons, if an easement over the share of one of the properties is necessary
for enjoying the share of the other, the later is entitled to such easement.
Section 13(f) provides that the dominant heritage is entitled to such
easement as it was enjoyed when the partition took effect.
10. Based on the evidence which has come on record, the witnesses of
the Plaintiff have supported the case of the Plaintiff as regards the
existence of the prior road. It is only the witness No. 3 who in his cross
examination has admitted that his deposition that since the year 1962
there exists a road is not correct. Despite the evidence of PW3, it needs
to be noted that the other witnesses have supported the case of the
Plaintiff and there is no material which is brought on record by the
Defendants to indicate otherwise.
8-SA-221-2017.doc
11. The Appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence on record and
and has come to a finding that the partition between the parties was prior
to 80 years and it is not the case of the Defendants that despite the Birnal
road being adjacent to the land, the predecessor of the Plaintiffs was using
any other way. The Appellate Court considered that the plantation of the
Defendants are at a later stage in respect of which the relief was sought by
the Plaintiff upon obstruction being caused by the Defendant. The
Appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence of witness of Plaintiffs
and noted the variance in the deposition of PW3. The Appellate Court on
re-appreciation of the evidence has confirmed the findings of the Trial
Court.
12. The challenge to mere appreciation of evidence of the material on
record would not raise any substantial question of law unless perversity is
demonstrated. The issue as regards the executability of the decree is a
matter to be considered by the executing Court and the denial of the relief
of mandatory injunction cannot be said to raise a substantial question of
law. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has rightly appreciated
the evidence and have rendered concurrent findings. There is no
perversity in the findings pointed out by the learned counsel for the
Appellant.
13. Having regards to the discussion above, no substantial question of
8-SA-221-2017.doc
law arises in the Second Appeal.
14. Appeal stands dismissed.
15. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, Civil Application does not
survive for consideration and the same is disposed of as such.
(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. )
Signed by: Harish V. Chaudhari
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/02/2024 12:33:23
