An easement of necessity can be claimed over a strip of land if it is necessary for the enjoyment of the property, even if there is another possible mode of enjoyment.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal.

( 2 ) ON May 27, 1966 the plaintiff purchased a house from one Sita Ram through a registered sale deed. Immediately to the west of this house was a piece of land 39. 6 long and 3. 6 wide. The latrine of the house, which was constructed by Sita Ram in the year 1941, opened towards this piece of land and the sweeper used to clean the same by passing over this strip of land. A few days earlier, on May 16, 1966, Sita Ram sold this strip of land to the defendants. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants had purchased the land lying to the west of this strip of land also and while building a house had started raising constructions on this strip of land as well with the result that the egress and ingress of the sweeper for the purpose of cleaning the latrine had been obstructed.

( 3 ) THERE was an earlier litigation between Sita Ram and the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants of the property lying to the west of the land in suit. In the suit filed by Sita Ram (Suit no. 257 of 1963), a compromise decree (Ex. 3) had been passed at the appellate stage providing for the keeping of this strip of land open for egress and ingress of the sweeper for cleaning the latrine. There is no dispute now between the parties about this fact.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff alleged that she was entitled to restrain the defendants from raising any constructions over this strip of land which may have the effect of precluding the sweeper from approaching the latrine for cleaning the same. She, therefore, prayed that the constructions raised by the defendants be removed and the land in suit be restored to its original condition and further that the defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner with the egress and ingress of the sweeper for cleaning the plaintiffs latrine.

( 5 ) THE defendants, inter alia, claimed ownership of the land in suit. They denied that the plaintiff had any claim for the user of the strip of land by the sweepers for cleaning the latrine. The suit was decreed by the trial court but that decree was reversed by the lower appellate court. Hence, the present second appeal.

( 6 ) ON consideration of the material on record, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the strip of land in dispute was the property of the defendants who had purchased it from sita Ram. It, however, took the view that the plaintiff had failed to establish any claim to the user of this land by the sweepers as an easement of necessity so as to enable her to obtain the decree which was granted by the trial court. This view of the lower appellate court has been assailed on behalf of the plaintiff in this appeal.

( 7 ) IN paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the plaint, a case has been set up by the plaintiff claiming user of the strip of land for the cleaning of the latrine as an easement of necessity. The lower appellate court, as is clear from its judgment, was of opinion that such a user of the suit land could not be claimed as an easement of necessity for the plaintiff had purchased the house from sita Ram after the sale of this strip of land to the defendants and further that the latrine in question could be cleaned by the sweepers by approaching it from within the house after entering it through the door to the south and passing through the open courtyard inside the house.

( 8 ) UNDER Section 13 of the Easements Act, where a person transfers or bequeaths immoveable property to another and an easement in other immoveable property of the transferor is necessary for enjoying the subject of the transfer, the transferee shall be entitled to such easement and where an easement in the subject of the transfer is necessary for enjoying other immoveable property of the transferor, the transferor, shall be entitled to such easement. In the present case, the strip of land was transferred to the defendants on May 16, 1966 by Sita Ram. The house, which was later purchased by the plaintiffs was then