Secretary of State v. Bombay Corporation

Facts

• The government claimed that the corporation's use of a way was interrupted by written protests
• No physical obstruction or barrier was ever placed
• The corporation had continuously used the way for over 20 years
• The government argued that its protests constituted interruption

Issue

1. What constitutes sufficient "interruption" to break the continuity of prescriptive user under S.15?

Held

• A verbal protest or written notice, without actual physical prevention of the user, does not constitute interruption. Interruption requires actual obstruction of the enjoyment for a continuous period of not less than two years. Mere words (protests, notices, legal threats) are insufficient.

Ratio Decidendi

S.15 requires enjoyment "without interruption." The word "interruption" in this context means physical obstruction or actual prevention of the use. A notice saying "I object to your use" does not physically prevent the use and therefore does not break the prescriptive period. Only actual blocking (building a wall, locking a gate, digging a trench) for 2+ continuous years counts.