RAM MOHAN Vs. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction who lost in both the courts. The question for consideration is whether a right of quasi easement or an easement of necessity is available to him to seek the injunction relief.

(2.) A and B-schedule properties together formed a compact plot of 78.75 cents having road frontage to its entire south. A-schedule 13.75 cents on the south-western corner of it having the full road frontage was sold by the respondent to the appellant under Ext. A1 on 16-7-1971 retaining B-schedule property with him. After about 10 years appellant removed the existing building and made a new construction covering the entire length and breadth of A-schedule. Respondent put up a gate to his B-schedule property from the southern road immediately to the east of A-schedule and then he closed it. It was then that this suit for injunction was filed claiming quasi easement and easement of necessity. Both claims' were denied. Claim was for access of lorries direct to an oil tank constructed in the back of his building.

(3.) On the evidence, both the courts found that the claims cannot stand. Those findings are unassailable. Neither Ext. A1 nor the evidence shows that the gate was there at the time of Ext. A1 or it was used for access to A-schedule property. The gate was a new construction after Ext.A1 for access to B-schedule property alone from the southern road. Such an access is not necessary for A-schedule property which itself is having the entire road frontage from the same southern road. Now what the appellant wants is access to the back yard of his premises through B-schedule property. Such an access became necessary only because he made the construction of his factory building covering the entire length and breadth of A-schedule without providing for vehicular access to the back from the road.