SUPREME COURT: EASEMENT BY NECESSITY NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THERE IS ALTERNATIVE WAY TO ACCESS PROPERTY

The Supreme Court in the case Manisha Mahendra Gala vs. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani observed that the claimant of an easementary right would not be entitled to claim the 'easementary right by necessity' for enjoying the 'Dominant Heritage' i.e., the property owned by the claimant when there exists an alternative way to access the 'Dominant Heritage' apart from the way over which the easementary rights were claimed to access the Dominant Heritage.

- 

The bench comprising of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra in the case observed and has stated that the easementary right by necessity could be acquired only in accordance with Section 13 of the Indian Easement Act which provides that such easementary right would arise if it is necessary for enjoying the Dominant Heritage. Thus, in the present case, the findings have been returned not only by the appellate courts but even by the trial court that there is an alternative way to access the Dominant Heritage, which may be a little far away or l