The right to irrigate well water is a quasi-easement if it is apparent, continuous, and necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant tenement in the state in which it was enjoyed before the severance of the tenements.

JUDGMENT :- This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of North Arcot at Vellore in A. S. No. 49 of 1955, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Vellore in O. S. No. 502 of 1953.

2. The facts of this case have been fully set out in the judgments of the Courts below and need not be recapitulated. The only point for determination is a point of law.

3. Both Courts below have come to the conclusion that a well which is the subject-matter of the controversy was the substantial source of irrigation for the lands which are now held by the defendants and which at one time along with the lands now held by the plaintiffs constituted one tenement. Is this substantial source of irrigation for the defendants lands an easement of necessity or a quasi-easement giving the defendants a right to use the said well ?

4. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that this cannot be described as an easement of necessity but that it could be described in the circumstances of this case as a quasi-easement and in regard to which he held that on account of the irrigation of this well water being discontinuous thought it was apparent, the defendants could not claim the quasi-easement right.

5. I entirely agree with the learned District Judge that this is not an easement of necessity. In two recent judgments of mine I have discussed the requirements of an easement of necessity distinguishing it from a quasi-easement and reviewed the English, American and Indian law on the subject : See Badrakali Ammal v. Poovalinga Konar, S. A. No. 1362 of 1955 (Mad) and Vairappan Ambalam v. Ulaganathan. S. A. No. 209 of 1956 (Mad). See Halsburys Laws of England third edition Vol. 12 page 527 paragraph 1141; 28 Corpus Juris Secundum page 692; K.N. Joshi Easements and Licenses 3rd edition pages 61 and 62.

6. In regard to the requirements of quasi-easement and the right of irrigation, the following information can be gathered from Katiars Law of Easements and Licenses in India (Third edition), pages 145 to 155; K.N. Joshis Easements and Licenses, Third Edition, page 65 and following; Gale on Easements, Twelfth Edition, page 60 and following; Peacock on Easements (T. L. L.) Third Edition, page 352 and following; and Goddard on Easements Eighth Edition, page 38; While clauses (a), (c) and (e) of S. 13 of the Indian Easements Act deal with what are known as easements of necessity, clauses (b), (d) and (f) have as their subject-matter quasi-easements.

The meaning of the term "quasi-easement", which occurs in many modern authorities is as follows. Where Blackacre and Whiteacre both belong to A, the common owner, and during his ownership an accommodation or privilege is enjoyed by Blackacre over Whiteacre, and A subsequently parts with Blackacre to B but retains Whiteacre, there passes to B in certain cases a right to the above accommodation. This accommodation as it existed during the common ownership cannot in the strict sense be described as an easement but is usually described as a "quasi-easement". Blackacre is sometimes described as the quasi-dominant tenement, and Whiteacre as the quasi-servient tenement.

7. Apparent and continuous easements which are necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant tenement in the state in which it was enjoyed at the time when it was severed from the servient tenement are called quasi-easements. Before such severance they are only the ordinarily rights of property and assume the character of rights of easement on such serverance only provided they fulfil certain specified conditions, namely, (1) they are apparent; (2) they are continuous; and (3) they are necessary for the enjoyment of the tenement for which they are claimed, in the same state in which it was enjoyed before severance from the tenement on which their liability is thrown.

8. The qualification that it should be necessary for the enjoyment of property in the state in which it was enjoyed be