Introduction:

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court addressed the issue of claiming prescriptive easement rights over the ridges of paddy fields. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice Johnson John, clarified that while there is no absolute rule barring the claim of prescriptive easement rights over such ridges, there is a strong presumption that the use of these ridges is permissive rather than as of right. The court emphasized that the burden of proof rests heavily on the claimant to establish that their use of the ridges was “as of right” and not merely permissive.

This case arose from a dispute where the plaintiffs sought to establish a prescriptive easement right of way over a paddy field owned by the defendant. The lower courts had dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, prompting them to appeal to the Kerala High Court. The court’s decision provides important guidance on the legal principles governing prescriptive easement claims, particularly in rural settings where the use of land features such as paddy field ridges is common.

Arguments Presented:

Plaintiffs’ Stand:

The plaintiffs, represented by Senior Advocate P.K. Suresh Kumar and Advocate K.P. Sudheer, argued that they had a prescriptive easement right of way over the ridges of the defendant’s paddy field. They contended that they had been using these ridges for many years to access their property and that this use should be recognized as a legal right.

The plaintiffs maintained that their continuous and uninterrupted use of the ridges over a significant period established their claim to a prescriptive easement. They argued that the use was not merely permissive but rather as of right, given the long duration of their usage. The plaintiffs pointed to the general principles of easement law, which allow for the acquisition of easement rights through long-term, uninterrupted use.

Additionally, the plaintiffs sought to distinguish their case from previous decisions where the use of paddy field ridges was considered permissive. They argued that the specific facts of their case supported the conclusion that their use of the ridges was a matter of right and not merely a convenience allowed by the landowner.

Defendant’s Stand:

The defendant, represented by Senior Advocate Sumathy Dandapani and Advocate Millu Dandapani, contested the plaintiffs’ claim, arguing that the use of the ridges was merely permissive and did not constitute a legal right. The defendant asserted that the ridges of the paddy field were narrow and primarily served as boundaries for irrigation and cultivation purposes, not as public or private pathways.

The defendant emphasized that the ridges were frequently realigned to accommodate the irrigation needs of the paddy field, further supporting the argument that the ridges did not have a defined course suitable for establishing a prescriptive easement right. The defendant also argued that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the strong presumption of permissiveness associated with the use of paddy field ridges in rural areas.

Furthermore, the defendant pointed out that the plaintiffs had failed to provide specific pleadings or evidence to establish that their use of the ridges was as of right. The defendant contended that the general practice in the village was to allow permissive use of paddy field ridges for convenience, and the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any circumstances that would elevate their use to the level of a legal easement.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court, after considering the arguments from both sides, delivered a nuanced judgment that addressed the complexities of the case. The court acknowledged the unique nature of paddy field ridges in rural settings and the common practice of villagers using these ridges for convenience. However, the court also recognized the legal principles governing the establishment of prescriptive easement rights.

Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice Johnson John began by stating that there is no absolute prohibition against claiming prescriptive easement rights over paddy field ridges. However, they emphasized that there is a significant presumption that the use of these ridges is permissive rather than as of right. The court highlighted that this presumption arises from the common practice in rural areas, where villagers are often allowed to use paddy field ridges for convenience, without any formal recognition of a legal right.

The court referred to previous decisions from the Allahabad High Court in *Smt. Balley and another v. Rama Shanker Lal and others (1976)* and *Vidya Sagar v. Ram Das (1976)*, as well as the single bench decision in *Thottathil Thamasikkum Cherootty alias Balan v. Puliyaratharayil Velayudhan Nair (1998)*, to support its conclusion. These cases established that while it is possible to claim a prescriptive easement right over paddy field ridges, the claimant must provide clear and convincing evidence that their use was as of right and not merely permissive.

The court noted that the ridges of paddy fields are often realigned to facilitate irrigation and cultivation, which further complicates the establishment of a prescriptive easement right. The court pointed out that the temporary and variable nature of these ridges makes it difficult to claim a continuous and uninterrupted right of way over them.

In the specific case before the court, the judges found that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of permissiveness. The court observed that the plaintiffs had failed to offer specific pleadings or evidence to demonstrate that their use of the ridges was as of right. The court concluded that the plaintiffs and others in the village had been using the ridges of the defendant’s paddy field as permissive users, rather than as a matter of legal right.

As a result, the Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the trial court and the first appellate court. The court reaffirmed the principle that while prescriptive easement rights can be claimed over paddy field ridges, the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that their use was as of right. In this case, the plaintiffs had failed to meet that burden, and their claims was accordingly rejected.