JUDGMENT : Additional defendant No.3 in a suit challenges the order issuing a Survey Commission to measure and identify a pathway over which the plaintiff claimed the right of easement by prescription in this proceeding. 2. The plaintiff instituted the original suit seeking a declaration of prescriptive easement right over the property scheduled as ‘C’ in the plaint. The plaintiff is the owner of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property, the dominant tenement. Defendants are the owners of plaint ‘B’ schedule property, the servient tenement. ‘C’ schedule property, the way, runs through the ‘B’ schedule property. It is averred that the way has a length of 36.8ms and width of 3ms. 3. At the time of institution of the suit, the plaintiff applied for a Commission. The Commissioner prepared Ext.P4 commission Report and rough sketch. Later, on the application of defendant No.1, the Commissioner prepared Ext.P5 commission report and rough sketch. 4. The plaintiff filed Ext.P6 application contending that Exts.P4 and P5 commission reports and rough sketches do not contain the precise measurements regarding ‘C’ schedule way. The trial Court allowed the application and issued a Commission consisting of an Advocate Commissioner and a Surveyor as per Ext.P8 order. This order is under challenge in this Original Petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/additional defendant No.3 and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The petitioner contended that a Survey Commission based on an imaginary line is absolutely unnecessary in a suit based on easement right. The learned counsel submitted that Exts.P4 and P5 commission reports and rough sketches contain the necessary requirements to identify the way claimed by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the attempt of the plaintiff is to prolong the matter. The learned counsel relied on Madhavan v. Narayanankutti and Others [ 2019 (4) KLT 208 ] in support of his contentions. 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendants specifically challenged the nature, lie and existence of the ‘C’ schedule way. The plaintiff has to take steps for measuring the property with the aid of an expert in survey so as to identify the exact location, measurement etc. of the way. The learned counsel submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is absolutely unnecessary to survey the property to identify the way in a suit based on easement cannot be sustained. of the way. The learned counsel submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is absolutely unnecessary to survey the property to identify the way in a suit based on easement cannot be sustained. The learned counsel submitted that though there may be visible physical materials to identify the way, the precise measurements regarding the way must be incorporated in a sketch to seek an effective enforcible decree. The learned counsel relied on Edakudi Raveendran @ Ravi and Others v. Lohithakshan and Another [ 2017 (2) KLT 865 ] in support of his contentions. 7. The plaintiff claims the right of easement by prescription over the plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The plaint ‘C’ schedule property is described as a way having a length of 36.8ms and width of 3ms that commences from the south east portion of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and runs through the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. 8. In the Written Statement, the defendants specifically denied the description of plaint ‘C’ schedule way. The defendants denied even the existence of the way. The rough sketch attached to Ext. P4 report does not contain the specific measurements regarding the way. The rough sketch attached to Ext.P5 report contains the descriptions of the way but not precisely. In Edakudi Raveendran, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that in order to grant a relief of declaration of easement by prescription over a way, there should be a plan having sufficient measurements, showing the actual lie of the properties and the existing pathway, prepared by a competent surveyor. In that case, the Court refused to grant relief for the reason that the plaintiffs failed to produce a plan showing the location, measurements, and lie of the properties, including the alleged pathway as it then existed. This Court in Madhavan v. Narayanankutti and Others referred to Edakudi Raveendran @ Ravi and Others v. Lohithakshan and observed thus:- “6. There cannot be any dispute that, easement being a precarious and special right, in which one person claims right over another man's land, the nature of right claimed and factual ingredients constituting the evolution of the right, the details of its user, the length, width, lie and location of the easement have to be precisely and meticulously pleaded and established in court. Easement by prescription being a right which is evolved by exercise of continuous user on a definite portion of the land over a long period of time, the easement and the nature of its use are bound to be evident by well defined visible physical marks available on the land, supporting the claim of existence of way and its user. In the case of easement by necessity also, the essential ingredients including the existence of way, its user and absence of any other way, can also be established by visible physical materials. This can easily be established by a local inspection furnishing the precise details of the way available, its approximate age of user and the evidence supported by rough sketch showing the lie, location, width, length, evidence of its continuous user, age and details of both terminals. This will sufficiently enable the court to give an effective enforcible decree. Evidently, easement has to be established by the details of physical visible marks on the land. Since continuous long use being Sine Quo non of easement by prescription and user of land with no other way being the essential ingredients of easement by necessity, which are dependent on physical, visible factors, a survey commission based on imaginary line is not only not essential, but absolutely unnecessary in a suit based on easement or a simple suit for injunction based on easement. 7. The above principle may equally be extended in appropriate cases, to a suit for injunction simpliciter, based on possession with well defined physical boundaries. In some cases plaintiff may rely on title also to support the claim possession. Even in a suit based on an allegation that there is obstruction of the way, encroachment to the way and construction encroaching into way, etc. an effective enforceable decree can be granted based on the report of local inspection alone, if precise measurement details of obstruction, constructions, encroachment, etc. are made available, coupled with reliable and admissible parol evidence. 8. The situation may not be different even if the defendant raises a contention that the property is not identifiable or that the boundaries are wrong or that the plaintiff has no title over the property. are made available, coupled with reliable and admissible parol evidence. 8. The situation may not be different even if the defendant raises a contention that the property is not identifiable or that the boundaries are wrong or that the plaintiff has no title over the property. Merely because there is such a denial, that should not necessarily lead to the framing of an issue regarding title or dispute of boundary, nor it call for measurement of the entire property with the help of a surveyor. Measurements with the help of surveyor becomes necessary, only if necessity for measurement of property genuinely arises from the pleadings of parties and if such an issue is raised. Unnecessary measurement with Surveyor causes unwanted monetary expenses for the parties and causes avoidable delay in conclusion of the litigation. Delay in measurement with surveyor and waiting for report of the Commissioner can be attributed as the single most common cause for the delay in the conclusion of majority of injunction suits.” 9. In Madhavan v. Narayanankutti and Others, this Court observed that when a person claims right of easement over another man’s land, the nature of the right claimed and factual ingredients constituting the evolution of the right, the details of its user, the length, width, lie and location of the easement have to be precisely and meticulously pleaded and established in Court. The Court further observed that easement by prescription being a right which is evolved by exercise of continuous user on a definite portion of the land over a long period of time, the easement and nature of its user are bound to be evident by well defined visible physical marks available on the land. The learned Single Judge further opined that this can be established by a local inspection by a Commissioner. The learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that a Survey Commission based on an imaginary line is absolutely unnecessary in a suit based on easement or a simple suit for an injunction based on the easement. This Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment further held that measurements with the help of a surveyor becomes necessary only if the necessity for measurement of property genuinely arises from the pleadings of parties. Madhavan v. Narayanankutti and Others therefore has not laid down the law that measurement of the properties, including the way, with the help of a surveyor is always unnecessary. Madhavan v. Narayanankutti and Others therefore has not laid down the law that measurement of the properties, including the way, with the help of a surveyor is always unnecessary. The ratio in measurements with the help of surveyor becomes necessary only if the necessity for measurement of property genuinely arises from the pleading of parties. The plaintiff has not requested the identification of the property based on a survey plan. The plaintiff requested the preparation of a rough sketch drawn to the scale so as to precisely and meticulously identify the details of the way vis-a-vis the length, width, lie, location, etc. I am perfectly in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court need not always insist on a plan having sufficient measurement to seek a decree based on easement. However, in cases where the necessity of measurement of the property genuinely arises, the details of the way vis-a-vis the length, width, lie, location, etc., on the servient tenement can be ordered to be ascertained and incorporated in a sketch. 10. In the present case, the plaintiff has requested to identify the property based on the visible physical materials on the land. Therefore, Ext.P8 order requires no interference. The Original Petition stands dismissed.