Judgment.- The short question for decision in this Second Appeal is whether the appellant who is the plaintiff has a right to go over the vacant space of the defendant for the purpose of repairing and whitewashing the northern outer side of the plaintiff’s wall. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had such rights subject to certain limitations as to the time and extent so as not to inconvenience or cause hardship to the defendant in the enjoyment of his property. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal held contra talcing the view that he was bound by a Bench decision of this Court in Bhagavatula Subramanya Sastri v. Bhagavatula Lakshminarasimham1, and must follow it in preference to Subramania v. Pachiappa2, a decision of a Single Judge of this Court.

The plaintiff and defendant are owners of adjoining properties, the defendants being the owner of the northern property. The houses faced east and between the houses of the plaintiff and the defendant there is a strip of vacant land. Normally there would have been no obstruction to the plaintiff having access to the northern side of his compound wall for repairing, over the space of the defendant. But he brought this opposition to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document