TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Easementary Right, Grants Permanent Injunction</h1> <h3>T.V. Ravi Versus B.R.,K. Subramaniyam, K. Duraisamy dependents</h3> T.V. Ravi Versus B.R.,K. Subramaniyam, K. Duraisamy dependents - TMI Issues Involved:1. Declaration of easementary right over the suit schedule cart track.2. Permanent injunction restraining interference with the easementary right.3. Validity of the agreement dated 07.03.2005 under Section 6(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.4. Burden of proof in a suit for declaration.Detailed Analysis:1. Declaration of Easementary Right:The plaintiff sought a declaration of his easementary right over the B-Schedule property, claiming it as a cart track, which was denied by the defendants. The plaintiff purchased the A-Schedule property through three sale deeds, which included the right to use the B-Schedule property as a cart track, as per an agreement dated 07.03.2005. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the agreement was not acted upon, and the plaintiff failed to establish his easementary right. However, the lower appellate court reversed this decision, validating the agreement and recognizing the easementary right of the plaintiff.2. Permanent Injunction:The plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with his easementary right. The trial court's dismissal of the suit was overturned by the lower appellate court, which decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, thereby granting the permanent injunction.3. Validity of Agreement under Section 6(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:The appellant contended that the easementary right conferred by the agreement dated 07.03.2005 could not be transferred, as it is barred under Section 6(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court clarified that Section 6(c) only prohibits the transfer of an easement separately from the dominant heritage. Since the easementary right was transferred along with the dominant heritage (A-Schedule property), the transfer was valid. The court cited precedents to support this interpretation, emphasizing that the easement right follows the dominant heritage upon its transfer.4. Burden of Proof:The appellant argued that the lower appellate court erred in shifting the burden of proof, asserting that the plaintiff must prove his case independently of the defendants' proof. The court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently established his case through the agreement and sale deeds, and the defendants' failure to contest the suit further weakened their position. The court noted that the 3rd defendant, being a subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the suit, could not effectively dispute the agreement's validity or the plaintiff's easementary right.Conclusion:The court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the lower appellate court's decision to decree the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant, and the plaintiff's easementary right over the B-Schedule property was upheld, along with the permanent injunction against the defendants.
TaxTMI 