The judgment establishes the importance of satisfying the legal requirements for acquiring rights under the Indian Easements Act, particularly in property disputes involving lateral support.

C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, J. :- The second defendant appeals against the decree of the learned Second Additional District Judge of Kottayam awarding damages to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 2,205/- and proportionate costs.

2. First defendant is the wife of the second defendant the appellant. The plaintiff and the defendants are adjoining property owners, the defendants property being immediately on the north of that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff constructed a wall on their property on their northern boundary separating their compound from that of the defendants, The defendants, according to the plaintiff, quarried the stones from their property which resulted in the deprivation of the lateral support to the plaintiffs compound wait.

As a result of the action of the defendants, the northern wall and the kitchen buildings belonging to the plaintiff, have developed very serious cracks and are in danger of falling down at any moment. The defendants are liable in law for the damages so caused to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 9,910/- on the basis of an estimate prepared by their Works Department in respect of the compound wall and the kitchen.

3. The first defendant, the wife, remained ex parte and the husband the second defendant-appellant contested the suit. He contended that his compound is on much a lower level than that of the plaintiff and for the purpose of constructing a building, the second defendant, in exercise of his lawful rights, levelled his plot. He also did some quarrying, as he was entitled to do in his property. He also contended that the compound wall and the kitchen of the plaintiff has not been affected by any act of his, but on the other hand, they have suffered, if at all, due to improper construction without adequate foundation. In the alternative, he also contended that the damages claimed by the plaintiff was excessive.

4. The learned additional district Judge, after considering the material evidence placed before; him, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs case in its entirety cannot be accepted. He has rejected the claim of the plaintiff into two regarding the injury to the kitchen building. Even in respect of the wall, the learned Judge has rejected the plaintiffs claim regarding the length of the wall from A to B and D to E shown in the plan, Ex. E.

5. But the learned Judge, declined to accept the contention of the defendants to the effect that they are entitled to earn on their lawful operation in their own plot and they are not responsible in law to any damage to the plaintiff. The learned Judge, acting on the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses, held that the subsidence of the wall and the cracks sustained by the wall in the portion B D was because of the act of the defendants in digging on their property.

According to the learned Judge, the property of the defendants was bound to give lateral support to the wall of the plaintiff and that support was lost when the defendants began digging and quarrying in their property. This according to the learned Judge, would make the defendants liable in law for damages and accordingly, the learned Judge decreed the plaintiffs claim for a sum of Rs. 2,205/- in respect of the damages sustained to the wall shown in Ex. E from point B to point D. In other respects, the claim of the plaintiff was rejected and the parties were directed to pay and receive proportionate costs.

6. The second defendant, as already stated, has filed this appeal contesting the decree passed as against him. There is a memorandum of objections filed by the plaintiff for the claim disallowed by the learned District Judge.

7. Mr. Sivasankara Panicker, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that the decision of the trial Court is contrary to law. Inasmuch as there is no allegation that the defendants wantonly interfered with the foundation of the wall, the appellant would not be liable in law for carrying on his lawful works in his property. The learned Couns