In Brief
The appellants (Gala's) claimed easementery rights over a 20-foot wide road on the respondents' (Ramani's) property. They sought to establish such rights by prescription (20+ years of uninterrupted use), necessity (no alternative access), or through a 1994 Sale Deed. The Supreme Court held that the original plaintiff failed to allege or prove 20 years of continuous use; his Power of Attorney holder could not testify about events before he acquired authority; an alternative route to the property existed, negating necessity; and no right could be transferred under the Sale Deed if it was not previously held. The Court upheld the appellate courts' dismissal of the Gala's suit and decreed of the Ramani's suit denying any right of way."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.