Granted easementary rights of way survive alternative access and cannot be unilaterally replaced by a servient owner.

A defined right of way acquired by grant continues according to its terms and cannot be displaced merely because an alternative route becomes available. The requirement under the Indian Easements Act, 1882 to exercise an easement in the least onerous manner for the servient owner does not authorise substitution of the granted route. Extinction on cessation of necessity applies only to easements of necessity, not easements created by grant. Dominant owners therefore remain entitled to use the established route through the servient land despite alternative access.

---

---

Issues: Whether an established easementary right of way acquired by grant can be displaced or extinguished merely because an alternative route is available to the dominant owners.

Analysis: The right of way through the servient land had been continuously used by the dominant owners and their predecessors, and was found to be an easement by grant. Section 22 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 requires an easement to be exercised in the manner least onerous to the servient owner, but does not permit substitution of a defined route acquired by grant. The statutory extinction upon cessation of necessity applies to an easement of necessity, not to an easement created by grant. Availability of another route therefore does not defeat the granted right of way.

Conclusion: The dominant owners were entitled to use the established route through the servient land, and the alternative route did not extinguish or justify replacement of that easementary right.

Ratio Decidendi: A defined easement of way acquired by grant continues according to its terms and cannot be extinguished or unilaterally substituted merely because an alternative access becomes available.

---