RUKMANI Vs. MEJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff. She sued for declaration of easement and for injunction to protect the easement. Her claim was easement by prescription. Her suit and appeal met dismissal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is stated below : She owns plaint A schedule property. She bought it under Ext A1 sale deed. It is a portion of a vast extent of paddy field. The B schedule property is owned by the defendants. The C schedule pathway which starts from the public road runs through the B schedule property on its southern extremity. The C schedule pathway reaches the D schedule ridge of the vast paddy field. The D schedule ridge reaches the A schedule paddy field of the plaintiff. The E schedule property is the residential property of the plaintiff. She and her family members take cattle from the E schedule property to the A schedule paddy field through the C schedule pathway and the D schedule ridge. They take the same route to go to the A schedule property to do cultivation therein. The plaintiff has a right of easement by prescription and also an easement of necessity to use the C schedule pathway for the aforesaid purposes. She has no other way.

(3.) The defendants had the following contentions : When they sold a portion of their property in 2013 which lay on the eastern side of the E schedule property, they provided a way for access to the property sold. The way was extended by them in 2014 when they partitioned their properties with their co-owners. The attempt of the plaintiff is to get a way through the B schedule property. She and her predecessorsin-interest never used the B schedule property for thoroughfare. She has access to her property directly from the public road. There is a pathway for her from the road to the D schedule ridge. She and her predecessors-in-interest were using the said pathway. She has no right of easement in the property of the defendants.