Gala v. Ramani: Easementary Rights Dispute

The Gala v. Ramani case revolves around a dispute over easementary rights in which the Gala family claimed rights over a road in Survey No.57 Hissa No.13A/1, owned by the Ramani family. This legal battle unfolded through various court instances, with the Gala’s predecessors-in-interest facing off the Ramani’s over access to a disputed road. Let’s delve into the details and implications of this crucial case.

Facts

Vasant Ramchandra Borkar sold a piece of land to Dharmadhikari, Survey No.57 Hissa No.13A/2.
Woler Francis became the exclusive owner of Survey No.48 Hissa No.15.
Ramchandra Borkar acquired the remaining land from the government.
The Gala’s claimed easementary rights over a road in Survey No.57 Hissa No.13A/1 owned by the Ramani’s.
Woler Francis succeeded by Joki Woler Ruzer, accepting the High Court verdict.
Land Survey No.48 Hissa No.15 was sold to Woler Francis by the government.
The Gala’s filed Suit No.14 of 1994 for easementary rights over the road, leading to a dispute with the Ramani’s.
Witnesses and evidence presented in court by both parties.
The Gala’s were restrained from disturbing Ramani’s possession over the land.
The primary issue was whether the Gala’s had easementary rights over the disputed road.
Descendants of the subsequent purchaser Mahendra Gala also involved in the suit.
Government acquired properties of Ramchandra Borkar due to arrears.
The Ramani’s purchased part of the land and resisted Gala’s claim of easementary rights.
The suit was decreed in favor of the Gala’s by the first instance court in 2003.
Judgment and order passed by court of first instance set aside
Suit decreed stating Gala’s have no right of way
Judgment and decree set aside in appeal by Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Raigad
High Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment and order

Also Read: Navigating Limitation Laws: A Case Study on Justice and Statutory Constraints

Arguments

The Gala’s have claimed easementary rights over a rasta based on a Sale Deed dated 17.09.1994.
The term ‘last many years’ used in their pleadings does not meet the legal requirement of 20 years for acquiring easementary rights through prescription.
The land to be enjoyed is called ‘Dominant Heritage’ while the land on which easement is claimed is called ‘Servient Heritage’.
Gala’s argued that they have no alternative access to their land except through the disputed rasta, emphasizing the necessity of easement.
The original plaintiff and Gala’s did not specifically claim 20 years of enjoyment of easementary rights over the rasta.
The Gala’s assertion of using the rasta for the beneficial enjoyment of their land for ‘last many years’ was contested by Ramani’s.
Section 15 of the Act mandates peaceful enjoyment without interruption for over 20 years to acquire easementary rights by prescription.
Navneet Liladhar Hariya, the Power of Attorney holder of the Gala’s, stated the existence of a 20ft. road on Survey No.57 Hissa No.13A/1 used as an approach road to Survey No.48 Hissa No.15.
Counsel for the appellants argued for liberal construction of pleadings but emphasized that essential legal requirements must be pleaded for establishing a right.
Access to the Dominant Heritage is claimed to be completely blocked due to lack of sufficient compliance with statutory requirements.
The Gala’s are said to have acquired easementary rights under a Sale Deed dated 17.09.1994, which does not extinguish even if the necessity has ceased to exist.
Cited case law of Dr. S. Kumar & Ors. vs S. Ramalingam to support the argument that granted easement rights cannot be defeated or extinguished solely due to the cessation of necessity.
The disputed access road was previously used by Gala’s predecessors but is now being contested by the Ramani’s.
Deposition of Sanjay Borkar, a member of the original landowners’ family, stated that neither the original plaintiff nor the Gala’s had a right of way on the land, suggesting an alternative access route.
As the Gala’s claim to have no other way to reach their land, they are allegedly being unfairly denied access and connectivity.

Also Read: Conviction Set Aside: Court Grants Benefit of Doubt in Assault Case

Analysis

It is settled in law that a fact which is not specifically pleaded cannot be proved by evidence.
No evidence on record to establish that the government transferred any easementary right over the rasta in question to Francis Woler.
Gala’s have not proved uninterrupted use of the land for over 20 years prior to their ownership.
Photocopy of a document is inadmissible as evidence.
Gala’s were not entitled to any easementary right by necessity upon the disputed rasta.
Gala’s failed to prove acquisition of easementary right over the rasta.
Power of Attorney holder can only depose about facts within his personal knowledge.
First appellate court can overturn findings of the court of first instance if against evidence on record.
Neither Gala’s nor their predecessor-in-interest testified in court regarding easementary rights.
Gala’s predecessor-in-interest never acquired easementary rights over the rasta to legally transfer it to Gala’s.
Absence of evidence to show acquisition of easementary right over the rasta prior to the suit being instituted.
Gala’s failed to prove acquisition of easementary right under the sale deed.
General Power of Attorney holder cannot depose on matters outside his personal knowledge.
Findings returned by the court that an alternative access to the Dominant Heritage exists, affecting easement of necessity.
Gala’s predecessor-in-interest did not acquire the property with easementary rights over the rasta.
Gala’s did not show that their predecessor-in-interest had any easementary rights over the disputed rasta.
Previously, a General Power of Attorney holder could not become a witness on behalf of the party represented as the power to appear in the witness box could not be delegated.
In the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd., it was held that a Power of Attorney holder can maintain a plaint on behalf of the represented person if they have personal knowledge of the transaction.
The Power of Attorney holder or legal representative should have knowledge about the transaction in question to present the truth related to the grievance or offense.
The Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the court only if they have witnessed the transaction as an agent and have adequate knowledge about it; otherwise, they cannot be examined as a witness.
The Gala’s have not acquired easementary right over the disputed rasta.
No basis was found to suggest the acquisition of easementary right through prescription, necessity, or agreement.
The appellate courts and High Court did not err in dismissing Suit No.14 of 1994 brought by the plaintiffs.
Suit No.7 of 1996 by the defendants was rightfully decreed by the courts.
The appeals lack merit and are therefore dismissed.