Rsa No. 3973 of 2023 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Applica(cid:31)on stands disposed of accordingly. Main case: The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants–defendants against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sirsa dated 01.11.2017 and the learned District Judge, Sirsa dated 19.08.2023, whereby the suit ins(cid:31)tuted by the respondents–plain(cid:31)ffs for declara(cid:31)on and permanent injunc(cid:31)on, claiming a right of passage by way of easement of necessity, has been decreed and the findings of the Trial Court have been affirmed in appeal. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3973-2023 (O&M)

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudica(cid:31)on of the present appeal are that the plain(cid:31)ffs filed a suit seeking declara(cid:31)on to the effect that they, being co-sharers and owners in possession of land comprised in Rect. No.112 Killa No.6, are en(cid:31)tled to a passage measuring 2 karam in width through the adjoining land comprised in Killa Nos.7 and 8, which is owned by the defendants. Consequen(cid:31)al relief of permanent injunc(cid:31)on was also sought restraining the defendants from interfering in the use of the said passage.

3. It was pleaded that the par(cid:31)es are descendants of a common ancestor and were co-sharers in a larger joint holding. Upon par(cid:31)(cid:31)on of the joint land, Killa No.6 fell to the share of the plain(cid:31)ffs, whereas Killa Nos.7 and 8 fell to the share of the defendants. However, no independent passage was provided to the plain(cid:31)ffs’ land during the course of par(cid:31)(cid:31)on. It was further averred that the plain(cid:31)ffs had been using a passage measuring 2 karam in width through the land of the defendants for the last several decades to access their land, and the said passage cons(cid:31)tuted an easement of necessity within the meaning of Sec(cid:31)on 13 of the Indian Easements Act,

1882. The dispute arose when the defendants started obstruc(cid:31)ng the said passage.

4. The defendants contested the suit by filing a wriBen statement, raising various preliminary objec(cid:31)ons. On merits, it was asserted that a proper passage had already been provided during the par(cid:31)(cid:31)on proceedings and that the plain(cid:31)ffs had no right to claim any further passage through the land of the defendants. It was also pleaded that an alterna(cid:31)ve passage was available and the present suit had been filed with a view to encroach upon the defendants’ land.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the par(cid:31)es, the learned Trial Court framed the necessary issues and the par(cid:31)es led both oral as well as documentary evidence. The plain(cid:31)ffs examined Sahab Ram as PW1 and NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 2 of 5 Pages RSA-3973-2023 (O&M) Bhoop Singh, Patwari, as PW2, and also produced various revenue records including jamabandis and muta(cid:31)on entries. The defendants, on the other hand, examined Rajender as DW1 and Inderjit Singh Bhalla, Architect, as DW2, and relied upon a site plan.

6. Upon apprecia(cid:31)on of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plain(cid:31)ffs had been able to establish that no alterna(cid:31)ve passage existed for reaching their land comprised in Killa No.6 and that the passage claimed through Killa Nos.7 and 8 was an easement of necessity. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. The appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sirsa, affirming the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that both the Courts below have misread the evidence on record and have wrongly concluded that no alterna(cid:31)ve passage was available. It is contended that the site plan produced by the defendants clearly establishes the existence of an alterna(cid:31)ve route and, therefore, the essen(cid:31)al ingredient of easement of necessity is not sa(cid:31)sfied. It is further argued that the plain(cid:31)ffs failed to prove the manner of acquisi(cid:31)on of the alleged easementary right and that the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from legal infirmity.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have carefully perused the record.

9. At the outset, it may be no(cid:31)ced that the jurisdic(cid:31)on of this Court in a Regular Second Appeal under Sec(cid:31)on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to considera(cid:31)on of substan(cid:31)al ques(cid:31)ons of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless the same are shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence.

10. In the present case, the factum of par(cid:31)(cid:31)on of the joint holding and allotment of Killa No.6 to the plain(cid:31)ffs and Killa Nos.7 and 8 to the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 3 of 5 Pages RSA-3973-2023 (O&M) defendants is not in dispute. The core issue that arises for considera(cid:31)on is whether the plain(cid:31)ffs have been able to establish that their land is landlocked and that the passage claimed by them is an easement of necessity.

11. From the evidence on record, it is evident that PW2 Bhoop Singh, Patwari, has categorically deposed that no passage was provided to the plain(cid:31)ffs’ land at the (cid:31)me of par(cid:31)(cid:31)on. This tes(cid:31)mony has remained unshaken in cross-examina(cid:31)on. More importantly, DW2 Inderjit Singh Bhalla, examined by the defendants themselves, has admiBed during cross- examina(cid:31)on that no alterna(cid:31)ve passage exists to reach Killa No.6 except through the land in dispute.

12. This admission goes to the root of the maBer and demolishes the stand taken by the defendants regarding the availability of an alterna(cid:31)ve passage. Once it is established that the plain(cid:31)ffs’ land cannot be accessed without passing through the land of the defendants, the right claimed by the plain(cid:31)ffs squarely falls within the ambit of easement of necessity as contemplated under Sec(cid:31)on 13 of the Indian Easements Act,

13. The conten(cid:31)on raised on behalf of the appellants that the plain(cid:31)ffs are seeking to assert an easementary right aGer a long lapse of (cid:31)me is also without merit. An easement of necessity arises by opera(cid:31)on of law at the (cid:31)me of severance of the tenement and con(cid:31)nues so long as the necessity exists. The right does not stand ex(cid:31)nguished merely on account of lapse of (cid:31)me so long as the necessity persists.

14. The argument regarding misapplica(cid:31)on of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by the Trial Court is equally misconceived. The reference to Sec(cid:31)ons 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act only pertains to the principle of burden of proof and shiGing of onus during trial. The findings recorded by the Courts below are based on apprecia(cid:31)on of the en(cid:31)re NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 4 of 5 Pages RSA-3973-2023 (O&M) evidence on record and not merely on technicali(cid:31)es rela(cid:31)ng to burden of proof.

15. On a careful considera(cid:31)on of the maBer, this Court finds that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper apprecia(cid:31)on of evidence and seBled legal principles. No perversity or illegality has been pointed out which would warrant interference in exercise of jurisdic(cid:31)on under Sec(cid:31)on 100 CPC. No substan(cid:31)al ques(cid:31)on of law arises for considera(cid:31)on in the present appeal.

16. Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are affirmed. The plain(cid:31)ffs shall be en(cid:31)tled to a passage measuring 2 karam in width through Killa Nos.7 and 8 for access to their land comprised in Killa No.6, and the defendants shall remain restrained from causing any obstruc(cid:31)on in the use of the said passage. No order as to costs. All the miscellaneous applica(cid:31)on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 05, 2026 Nee(cid:31)ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 5 of 5 Pages