Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Goa University (original defendants) against an order dated 24.06.2016 passed by the District Judge-1, North Goa, Panaji, which allowed the application of respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) for a temporary injunction restraining the appellants from blocking and obstructing the suit access as shown in the plan. The plaintiff, Mr. Haroon Ebrahim, claimed a right of easement over a road passing through the University's property, alleging that the road had been used by him and his predecessors for decades. The University contended that there was no easement right and that the plaintiff's conduct was not equitable. The court examined the pleadings, correspondence, and evidence, including letters from 1990 and 1992, and a government report. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of easement by prescription and necessity, and that the balance of convenience was in his favor. The court also noted that the University had not demonstrated any irreparable injury. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the interim injunction was confirmed. The court directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Easement Law - Right of Way - Easement by Necessity and Prescription - Indian Easements Act, 1882, Sections 13 and 15 - The court examined whether the plaintiff had established a right of way over the defendants' property either by necessity or by prescription, based on long user and correspondence. Held that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of easement by prescription and necessity, and the trial court's injunction was justified (Paras 1-10). B) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience, Irreparable Injury - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 - The court considered the principles for granting temporary injunction, emphasizing that the plaintiff must show a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favor, and irreparable injury. Held that the trial court correctly applied these principles and the appeal lacked merit (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent no.1 has a right of easement over the suit access and whether the trial court correctly granted temporary injunction restraining the appellants from blocking the access.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 24.06.2016 passed by the District Judge-1, North Goa, Panaji, is confirmed. The trial court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Easement by necessity
- Easement by prescription
- Temporary injunction
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable injury
- Specific Relief Act
- 1963 Section 38
- Indian Easements Act
- 1882 Sections 13
- 15
