Back
1990 Supreme(Mad) 900
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN
R. Louis @ R.P. Thambi Raja & Another
Versus
R. Irudayamary Ammani
S.A. No. 1245 of 1981
Decided On :Decided on : 19-10-1990
For the Appellant:M/s. M.B. Dominique & K. Sukumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S.R. Sundaram, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that after the severance of two houses, Section 13 of the Easements Act does not apply, and the claimants must establish their rights for easements.
Headnote:
Easement - Right of Way - The court held that the appellants cannot claim right of way as both houses have direct access to the main road, and Section 13 of the Easements Act does not apply after the severance of the two houses.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants claimed rights of easement, one of passage and another of light and air, over the adjacent property owned by the respondent. The courts below ruled against the appellants' claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants cannot claim right of way as both houses have direct access to the main road, and the appellants have not established their claims for easements of air and light.
Issues: The issues involved the appellants' claims for rights of easement, specifically right of way and easement of air and light, over the respondent's property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 13 of the Easements Act does not apply after the severance of the two houses, and the appellants have not established their claims for easements.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the appellants.
The unsuccessful plaintiffs who lost in both the Courts are the appellants herein. They claimed rights of easement, one, of passage and another, of light and air. They are the owners of Door No. 19/128, Trichv road, Singanallur, Coimbatore-5. The adjacent property on the east, namely, No. 19/129 is admittedly owned by the respondent herein. There are two door ways marked as ‘x’ and ‘y’ on the eastern wall of the appellants house. The appellants claim right of way along the open space on the rear side of the respondents house to reach Trichy Main Road from the door ways, ‘x’ and ‘y’. The courts below have rightly pointed ou t that the appellants cannot make any such claim by way of right of easement as both the houses are abutting the Trichy Main Road having direct access thereto. Hence there is no question of any right of easement in favour of the appellants over the property of the respondent.
2. The appellants placed reliance on Section 13 of the Easements Act and contended that the property was originally owned in common by Doraisamy Raja Bahadur and by his Will he gave a life interest in favour of his sister in both the houses. The said sister died on 29.9.1977. According to the appellants as the two houses were earlier owned in common and got severed they will be entitled to right of easement under Section 13 of the Act. This contention has been rightly negatived by the courts below. Section 13 of the Easements Act will come into play only in case of necessity. Even if it is assumed that originally the common owner had been making use of the open space as a passage to reach the main road, after the severance of the two houses the respective owners will not have any such easementary right.
3. As regards the claim for the easement of air and light nothing has been made out by the appellants. The courts below have considered the matter properly and carefully and came to the conclusion that the appellants have not established their claims for easements.
4. There is no question of law much less a substantial one. The second appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
