Prescriptive easement and implied grant upheld for pathway access; statutory vesting did not extinguish the right of way.

Long, open and continuous user of a pathway may establish a prescriptive easement if it is enjoyed openly, peacefully and as of right for the statutory period, and the court found the evidence sufficient to support that conclusion. Alleged interruption during military occupation was not proved with enough certainty to stop time running, so prescription was not defeated. A right of way was also sustainable by implied grant from the settlement deed and surrounding circumstances where access appeared necessary for reasonable enjoyment. Vesting of the servient property in the Central Government under the rehabilitation statute did not extinguish the easement, as "free from all encumbrances" was not construed to destroy an existing right of way without clear legislative mandate or compensation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff had acquired a right of way over the disputed pathway by prescription as an easement. (ii) Whether any interruption occurred so as to prevent completion of the prescriptive period. (iii) Whether a right of way could be implied from the settlement deed and surrounding circumstances. (iv) Whether the easement stood extinguished on the vesting of the servient property in the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff had acquired a right of way over the disputed pathway by prescription as an easement.

Analysis: Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act requires peaceful and open enjoyment, as an easement and as of right, without interruption, for twenty years. Long and open user may justify an inference that the enjoyment was as of right, provided the use was not by stealth, sufferance, or mere leave and licence. The evidence showed continuous user of the passage for access to the plaintiff's property, and the adverse inference drawn by the lower appellate court from common management was held unsound.

Conclusion: The prescriptive right of way was established in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether any interruption occurred so as to prevent completion of the prescriptive period.

Analysis: An easement is suspended when the dominant and servient tenements come into the possession of the same person for a limited interest, and such unity may break continuity for prescription under Section 49 of the Indian Easements Act. On the facts, the alleged interruption during military occupation was not proved with sufficient certainty to arrest the running of time.

Conclusion: No effective interruption was proved, and the prescriptive period was not defeated.

Issue (iii): Whether a right of way could be implied from the settlement deed and surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: Where property is conveyed or settled in circumstances showing that access through an existing pathway is necessary for reasonable enjoyment, an easement may arise by implied or constructive grant. The settlement described the gifted property as abutting the surrounding roads and there was no alternative access suggested in the instrument. The surrounding circumstances supported the inference that the grantor intended the access to continue.

Conclusion: A right of way was also sustainable on the footing of implied grant.

Issue (iv): Whether the easement stood extinguished on the vesting of the servient property in the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

Analysis: Although the Act provides for vesting free from all encumbrances, the expression was construed in the statutory context as referring to burdens capable of being worked out against the compensation or sale proceeds, not so as to defeat an easement without compensation. A broader construction would produce unjust and anomalous results and was rejected.

Conclusion: The easement was not extinguished by vesting under the Act.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff's right of access across the disputed pathway was upheld, and the defendants could not lawfully obstruct it.

Ratio Decidendi: A long, open and continuous user of a pathway may establish a prescriptive easement as of right, and the expression "free from all encumbrances" in the relevant rehabilitation statute does not, in this context, extinguish an existing right of way absent a clear legislative mandate and compensation mechanism.

---