Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry
Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry (1951 AIR 1951 SC 140)
Facts of the Case:
This case is a significant judgment by the Supreme Court of India dealing with the law of easements, specifically the right of necessity as an easement.
The dispute arose between two neighbors regarding access over a particular path.
The plaintiff (Shambhu Ram Yadav) owned a property landlocked and had no direct access to the public road except through the defendant’s (Hanuman Das Khatry) land.
The plaintiff claimed a right of way (easement) by necessity over the defendant’s property to reach the public road.
The defendant denied any such right and contested the claim.
Legal Issue:
The main legal issue was whether a right of way by necessity can be claimed as an easement when a landlocked property has no access to a public road except over neighboring land.
The court had to decide if the plaintiff was entitled to an easement for passage (right of way) over the defendant's property.
Relevant Law:
An easement is a right that the owner of one land possesses over the land of another for some special purpose (like right of way, water, light, etc.).
The right of necessity is a type of easement that arises when a landowner sells a portion of land which is landlocked, and the only access is over the seller’s remaining land.
Under common law principles and codified in Indian law (e.g., Section 41 of the Easements Act, 1882), a right of way by necessity is recognized to ensure that the owner of a landlocked property is not deprived of access.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held in favor of the plaintiff, Shambhu Ram Yadav.
It recognized the right of way by necessity as an easement.
The Court observed that when a landlocked property is sold or created from a larger parcel without access, the law implies a right of way over the seller’s or neighbor’s land to ensure reasonable access.
It was held that this right is not dependent on long usage or prescription but arises out of the necessity for access.
The right is limited to the minimum extent necessary for access.
The Court clarified that this easement is a legal right that runs with the land, binding successors in title.
Significance of the Case:
The case established the principle that the right of way by necessity is an implied easement, not requiring express grant.
It protects landowners whose property is otherwise inaccessible, preventing isolation of landlocked plots.
The ruling is frequently cited in easement disputes involving access rights.
It confirms that the right of necessity is recognized under Indian law and is enforceable even if the servient owner refuses access.
Related Case Law:
Kavita Choudhary vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2013)
Reiterated that easements like right of way by necessity protect the use and enjoyment of property and prevent land from becoming useless.
D’Souza v. Dias (1959)
Confirmed the principle that a right of way can be implied out of necessity even without express grant.
Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal (1967)
Discussed the nature of easements and the implied rights arising from necessity and prior use.
Sundar Ram v. Subramaniam (AIR 1921 Mad 370)
Early case discussing the necessity for implied easements and reasonable use of dominant tenement.
Summary:
Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanuman Das Khatry firmly establishes that a landlocked owner has an implied right of way by necessity over adjoining land to access a public road.
The right arises automatically when a property is severed and lacks access.
It protects the property owner from having unusable land.
This easement is enforceable against successors and cannot be denied by the neighboring landowner.
The right is limited to what is necessary for reasonable access and enjoyment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments