Sree Swayam Prakash Ashramam v. G. Anandavally Amma

The Supreme Court delivered an authoritative judgment on the doctrine of implied grant of easement under the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The Court held that even where an easement does not qualify as an absolute 'easement of necessity' under Section 13 (due to the theoretical existence of an alternative rugged access), an easement by implied grant arises where a pathway has been continuously, openly, and uninterruptedly used as the sole practical access to a severed property since the time of partition or grant. The servient owner cannot block or obstruct such pathway.

• Doctrine of Implied Grant: An easement of pathway can arise by implied grant upon severance of tenements, even if not strictly an easement of absolute necessity.
• Continuous and Apparent User: Open and continuous user of an access path for decades creates a vested right that runs with the dominant tenement.
• Severance of Tenements: Where a common owner divides property, all apparent and continuous easements necessary for reasonable enjoyment pass by implied grant.
• Alternative Inconvenient Access Irrelevant: Existence of an impracticable, steep, or unformed alternative does not extinguish an implied grant.
• Permanent Injunction Against Obstruction: Ashram authorities restrained from putting up gates or walls obstructing the plaintiff's access pathway.

One Yogini Amma was the absolute owner of a large parcel of land in Thiruvananthapuram. In 1976, she gifted a portion of the property (Plaint 'A' schedule) to the respondent (G. Anandavally Amma) and donated the remaining adjacent land to the appellant Ashram.

From the inception of the gift in 1976, the respondent had been accessing the public road exclusively through a defined pathway measuring 10 feet in width ('B' schedule pathway) running through the Ashram's land.

In 1982, the Ashram authorities attempted to construct a compound wall and gate across the pathway, completely blocking the respondent's ingress and egress.

The respondent filed a civil suit for declaration of her easementary right of pathway and permanent injunction. The Ashram resisted the suit, contending that the respondent had an alternative access and therefore could not claim an easement of necessity under Section 13 of the Easements Act.

The trial court, District Court, and Kerala High Court concurrently decreed the suit holding that the respondent had an implied grant. The Ashram appealed to the Supreme Court.

An easement of necessity under Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 arises only when the property cannot be enjoyed at all without the easement. If there is an alternative access, however inconvenient, an easement of necessity strictly so-called cannot arise. However, the law recognizes an easement by implied grant. Where the owner of an entire property divides it into two parts and grants one part to another, the grantee is impliedly granted all those continuous and apparent easements which are necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property granted and which were used by the common owner during unity of ownership. In the present case, the evidence established beyond doubt that the 'B' schedule pathway was an apparent, well-defined path which was used by Yogini Amma and was openly, continuously, and uninterruptedly used by the respondent since the gift in 1976 as the only motorable and reasonable access to the public road. The grant of the property by gift carry with it by implication the grant of the right of way over the pathway. Even if an easement of necessity could not be claimed due to a theoretical rocky ridge on the other side, the right of pathway stood fully established on the principle of implied grant. The courts below committed no error in granting a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from obstructing the pathway.

• Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal (2006) 5 SCC 545: Coordinate foundational authority on implied grant of common amenities upon partition.
• Bachan Singh v. Kartar Singh (2002) 10 SCC 326: Cited on continuous easementary user of rural irrigation channels and pathways.
• Manish Commercial v. N.R. Dongre (2018) SCC OnLine Del 8892: Applied Sree Swayam Prakash to commercial right of way.