Desa Gowda v. Thimma Gowda

Facts

• The dominant owner had a right of way over the servient land
• The dominant owner stopped using the path and used an alternative route for over 20 years
• When the dominant owner later tried to use the original path, the servient owner blocked it
• The dominant owner claimed the easement still subsisted because they never intended to abandon it

Issue

1. Whether 20 years of non-use extinguishes a prescriptive easement automatically, or whether intent to abandon is also required.

Held

• The easement is extinguished by 20 years of non-use under S.44. Subjective intent is irrelevant. The section operates objectively: if a discontinuous easement is not enjoyed for 20 years, it ceases to exist. The dominant owner's mental reservation that they "still had the right" does not prevent extinction.

Ratio Decidendi

S.44 mirrors S.15 in reverse. Just as 20 years of use creates a prescriptive right (S.15), 20 years of non-use destroys it (S.44). Both operate objectively (based on facts) without requiring proof of subjective intent. This ensures certainty and prevents stale claims.