The judgment establishes that the grant of an easement does not involve a transfer of ownership as contemplated by Section 54, T.P. Act, and therefore, does not require registration.

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The facts necessary for the decision of this second appeal may be briefly stated as follows:

The defendant is the appellant. Plaintiffs sued the defendant to establish their right to let out drainage water along the bodi (drainage channel) marked CC-1, in the plaint and for the issue of an injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiffs in repairing the said channel. The drainage channel passes through the defendants fields which lie to the south of the plaintiffs lands. Plaintiffs claim to discharge the water through the channel is based upon an easement right granted to plaintiff 1 Under Ex. E by the defendants father. Ex E dated 30th July 1911 is a letter written by the defendants father, Dikshithalu, to plaintiff 1. It runs as follows:

You wanted a bodi for flowing freely the surplus water through the land along eastern bund of Re Survey Inam No. 187 owned by us in Pedavarthi village. Having given a bodi to you in the said manner, I wanted you to give me at a future time a bodi to my land 187 through your land 75 in case I dig the earth from my land and lower the level of the same and you consented to the same. On this understanding I allow a bodi through my land.

2. The defendant contended (1) that Ex. E is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration under Section 54, T.P. Act, and (2) and that, if admissible in evidence, the document is not binding on him with respect to a portion of the bodi, inasmuch as, when his father granted the easement, he had no right over that particular portion of the property, which in 1916, i.e., after his fathers death, came to him (the defendant) by way of reversion. The lower appellate Court disallowed the contention of the defendant on both these points and decreed the plaintiffs suit. These points are again urged before me in second appeal.

Point No. 1.-In support of this contention reliance is placed upon Clauses 1 and 2, Section 54, T.P. Act. Clause 1 states that

Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid or part promised.

3. Under Clause 2

Such transfer...in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing can be made only by a registered instrument.

4. It is argued that, under Ex. E, an easement right, that is, a part of the right of ownership as contemplated in Clause 1, Section 54, T.P. Act, has been transferred to plaintiff 1 and this, being a transfer of an intangible thing as contemplated in Clause 2 of that section, it can only be done by a registered instrument and since Ex. E is not registered it is inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 6 (c), T.P. Act, an easement cannot be transferred apart from the dominant heritage. Section 54 of the Act taken along with Section 6 (c) would appear to contemplate the transfer of an existing easement as distinguished from the creation of the imposition of a new easement. It is clear that there is a distinction between the transfer of an existing easement and the creation or grant of a new easement. The transfer of an existing easement is the act of the dominant owner and is inseparable from the transfer of the dominant heritage, while the creation of a new easement is the act of an owner imposing a burden on his property. On this reasoning the grant of an easement does not involve such a transfer of ownership in immovable properties as is contemplated by Section 54, T.P. Act, hence Ex. E does not require registration.

5. The arguments addressed to me were all elaborately considered by the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagwan Sahai v. Narasingh Sahai [1909] 31 All. 612 overruled. It was held in that case that an agreement granting an easement right did not require registration, not being a transfer of ownership as contemplated by Section 54, T.P. Act. Prior to the enactment of the Easement Act, Act 5 of 1882, it was laid down by this Court in Krishna v. Rayappa Shenbhaga 4 M.H.C. 98 that it was not necessary that the imposition of an