Srinivasa Upadya vs Ranganna Bhatta (died) and Others

Ayling, J.—The subject of dispute is an easement claimed as prescription. The servient tenement belonged to Government till two years

before suit and was then assigned by Government to the defendant. At the time of assignment the easement had been exercised only for thirty or

forty years and had therefore not become absolute as against Government. Appellant contends that the transfer of ownership had the effect of

rendering it absolute inasmuch as the servient tenement became the property of a private individual against whom the previous thirty or forty years

enjoyment would be sufficient u/s 15 of the Easements Act.

The point is a novel one and is not covered by authority. But we think appellant''s contentious cannot be admitted. We think the words ""belongs

to Government"" in the last paragraph of Section 15 must refer, not to the time of suit but to the time during which the easement is enjoyed. An

easement can only be acquired by twenty years enjoyment against a private person or by sixty years enjoyment against Government. Here neither

condition is satisfied. It may be that where the sixty years'' period has nearly expired, during Government ownership of the land, and the land is

then transferred by Government to a private party, the acquisition of the easement might be held to be completed when the deficiency was made

up by subsequent enjoyment against the transferee but subject to this the person claiming the easement must make good his title by twenty years''

enjoyment against the transferee after the transfer.

If we adopted the view contended for by appellant, we should have to hold that the transfer of the servient tenement by a private owner to

Government would have the effect of destroying any easement right, which had been legitimately acquired by twenty years enjoyment but which

had not been enjoyed for the period of sixty years required as against Government, The appeal is dismissed with costs.