Overview Of Souriraja Naidu V Rajagopalan

2nd November, 2023 - 11:26 am Categories: Legal Issues 0 Comments

INTRODUCTION

Souriraja Naidu V Rajagopalan is pre-constitutional judgment on easement rights that was delivered in 1924. This is perhaps one of the oldest judgements in its field which is still prevalent in today’s time. The case talks about two different kinds of easement rights namely easement by prescription and easement by necessity that were pleaded before the court.

The judgement was given in the year 1924 in the Madras High Court. It was given by a single judge bench of Chief Justice Charles Gordon Spencer. The judgment was rather small of about 200-250 words as it did not define easement rights but merely gave an order on the matter at hand.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The case revolves around easement rights pleaded by the three plaintiffs to use the defendant’s land which was adjoining to their land. Plaintiff 1 (Hereinafter referred to as P1) and P2 plead that they used easement rights to take water over the defendant’s land. They pleaded that this easement was by prescription (permission) of the owner and easement by necessity respectively. This claim was denied by the District Munsif on grounds of false allegations of easement rights.
2. P3’s claim however was accepted by the Munsif on the grounds of necessity. P1 and P2 had the option of using alternate routes to direct the flow of water but there was no other route for P3 to direct water to his land and the only option available to him was through easement by necessity.
3. This judgement by the District Munsif was refuted by P1 and P2 and went onto further appeal to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.

ISSUE

Whether the right to easement either by prescription or by necessity was available to the Plaintiffs (P1 and P2)?

RULES AND CASES

1. The Indian Easements Act 1882, Section 13
2. Morla Gangulu V. Thata Jagannatham
3. Watts v Kelson

RATIO

Easement by necessity is a right that a party can claim only if there are no alternate options available to them and some vital use of land is at stake. P1 and P2 had alternate routes through which they could create a channel for irrigation but P3 did not have any such route and hence could not irrigate their land.

Further, P1 and P2 did not prove any easement by prescription by the defendant and so they were denied their claims of easements and had to take measures to remove their channels of water from the defendant’s land. P3 however, was given the right to easement by necessity as they did not have any alternate routes for irrigation which was vital for the survival of crops on their land. The judge dismissed P1 and P2’s claim while they accepted P3’s claim for easement.

ANALYSIS

The following case revolves around the right of easement pleaded by the three plaintiffs. P1 and P2 pleaded easement by necessity. This was not the case as both of them had alternate solutions to their irrigation problem which could be easily solved by re-routing the channel of water or creating a separate channel directing the flow to their land. The court was right in denying them easement rights as there was no apparent necessity neither did they ask the owner of the land (i.e. the defendant) for permission which rules out easement by prescription.

The second plea was regarding P3 and their easement rights. P3’s land was also adjoining the defendant’s property but they did not have any other means of irrigation rather than through the defendant’s land. This is vital for their use of land was their appeal of easement by necessity was accepted by the court and were granted a way of channel for water to flow to their land.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

This judgement briefly lays the rule of easement by necessity and when can this right be granted to a person by the court. If there exists an alternate way by which a person can enjoy their land then the rule of necessity goes away and no rights are grated. This right can only be granted in special circumstances where there are absolutely no recourses available.

Even if a person has no other recourses available to them and use of another person’s land by way of easement is the only remedy available, it can still be denied by the court if it puts a huge amount of pressure on the land through which such easement is created. “Easement as a burden for the owner`s property” by Oleh Llkiv is an interesting take on how easement rights can put a huge burden on the owner’s property. Private property in most cases is bought for the use and enjoyment of an individual and restrictions or hindrances such as easements can get in the way of such enjoyment. Hence, a person can move to the court if they feel that such easement rights are making it difficult for them to use their property and come to a conclusion which is beneficial for both the parties.

Another take on easements can be read in “AN ANALYSIS ON THE DOCTRINE OF EASEMENT” by Vibha V which compares easement rights to temporary and partial possession of another person’s land. To put it simply, when a person enjoys easement rights, they have a ‘right’ to enter directly or indirectly into someone else’s land and use their property in such a way that it is beneficial for them. This results in a temporary and partial possession which the person enjoys over the owner.

CONCLUSION

Easement rights can be looked from two very different perspectives. The person enjoying such rights have an ‘ease’ being provided to them by the court through which they can use or enjoy another person’s land. On the other hand, the person bearing such rights on their land can see this as a hindrance which can disturb their enjoyment.

Hence, such rights are given only after careful consideration by the court after reviewing the facts of the case and only in cases where vital enjoyment of land can be observed after providing them with such rights. Misuse of such rights can result in revocation by the other and further damages to be paid to the owner.

Author: Sonakshi Pandey, A Student at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

REFERENCES

1. 81 Ind Cas 833
2. Pooja Kapur, “An Overview: Law of Easements in India” (2019)https://blog.ipleaders.in/an-overview-law-of-easements-in-india/
3. The Indian Easements Act 1882, Section 13
4. 76 Ind Cas 331
5. (1870) 6 Ch App 166
6. Oleh Llikiv, “Easement as a burden for the owner`s property” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352074735_Easement_as_a_burden_for_the_owners_property
7. Vibha V, “An Analysis of The Doctrine of Easement” https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Vibha-IJLDAI.pdf