Back
Allahbad High Court
DEOKINANDAN
Prabhu Narain Singh - Appellant
Versus
Ram Niranjan - Respondent
Decided On : 05/24/1982
EASEMENT - RIGHT TO DISCHARGE DIRTY WATER - S.15, 17, 4, 5, 6, 7 OF THE INDIAN EASEMENTS ACT, 1882 - A person cannot acquire an easement by prescription to discharge the dirty water of his house on another person's land.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from flowing the water of their Nabdan from the land in suit and mandatory injunction for covering up the drain and restoration of the land to its original condition. The defendants claimed that they had been flowing the water of their Nabdan for more than twenty years and had acquired an easement right to do so by prescription.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defendants could not acquire an easement by prescription to discharge the dirty water of their house on the plaintiff's land. The court observed that such an easement would be allowing a right to create or cause nuisance on another person's land, which is not contemplated by the Easements Act.
Issues: Whether the defendants could be said to have acquired any right of easement to discharge the dirty water from the drain of their house in the plaintiff's land?
Ratio Decidendi: S.15 of the Indian Easements Act says that easements acquired under S.15 are said to be acquired by Prescription and are called prescriptive rights. The present is not a case of any of the exceptions specified under clauses (a) to (d) in respect of which prescriptive rights of easement could not be acquired. Nevertheless, S.15 itself specifies the kinds of rights which can be acquired by prescription. They include the right to light or air to a building, a right to support to land or things affixed thereto, a right of way, "or any other easement". The question is whether a person could discharge the dirty water of his house on another person's land as of right by way of an easement. S.4 of the Easements Act defines an easement. The illustrations under that section give certain instances of the kinds of rights which may be acquired by way of easements and also certain rights which are not easements. S.5 describes what are continuous and discontinuous or apparent and non-apparent easements, S.6 is not material for our present purpose. S.7 defines the nature of the easementary rights by saying that easements are restrictions of one or other of the following rights (namely): "(a) Exclusive right to enjoy. The exclusive right of every owner of immovable property (subject to any law for the time being in force) to enjoy and dispose of the same and all products thereof and accessions thereto. (b) Rights to advantages arising from situation. The right of every owner of immovable property (subject to any law for the time being in force) to enjoy without disturbance by another the natural advantage arising from its situation." The illustrations and the explanations under that section also show the nature of the easementary rights. A perusal of the illustrations (f), (g), (h), (i) and (i) show that there is no right by way of easement to discharge the dirty water of the drain of ones house or properly on another person's land. That would be, in my opinion, allowing a right to create or cause nuisance on another person's land. An easement of that kind is not contemplated by the Easements Act, and I think properly so.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed.
1. "Whether the disputed land is the Sehan of the plaintiffs house? If so its effect?"
2. "Whether there is a Parnala of the defendant over the disputed land?"
3. "Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as alleged by the defendants?"
4. "Whether the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession over the land in dispute?"
5. "To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?".
2. Issue No. 3 was decided in the negative as a preliminary issue. On issues Nos.1 and 4, the trial Court held on an appraisal of the evidence on the record that the land in suit was the plaintiffs Sehan (courtyard) and the defendants had not perfected title thereto by adverse possession. Issue No.2 was also decided by the trial Court in the plaintiffs favour. It was held that there was a tank to the west of the defendants house in which the water from the drain used to accummulate but that tank having been demolished, dirty water flowed over to the plaintiffs Sehan which created "nauseating smell and filth". In the result, the trial Court decreed the suit for the relief claimed.
3. The lower appellate Court has in appeal dismissed the suit. According to the lower appellate Court, the land, of which the land in suit forms part, was purchased, vide Ext.7 by the plaintiff on the 23rd June, 1964, from Hingu Singh. The area of the land sold was only 5 decimals and although the eastern boundary of the land sold was shown to be the house of Ram Niranjan Singh, who was himself the defendant along with his sons, the area actually occupied by the plaintiffs house and Sehan was more than 5 decimals and, therefore, in the absence of any demarcation on the spot, it was not possible to define the extent of the plaintiffs Sehan and even if the defendants, evidence regarding their possession over a Portion of the land is considered untrustworthy, the fact remains "the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the entire disputed land is his Sehan" and that "the evidence only shows that a portion of the disputed land, which has not been demarcated on the spot properly alone is his Sehan."
The lower appellate Court then raised the question whether the defendants have acquired an easementary right of flowing the water of their Nabdan and held that the defendants version was highly probable and believable and that it was unable to accept the plaintiffs version regarding the cesspool. The further reason given by the lower appellate Court was that the plaintiff appeared on the scene only since the middle of 1964 while the defendants had been living since long before and that, therefore, their version that they had been flowing the water of their Nabdan through the land in suit for over twenty two years and had acquired easementary right to do so through the course indicated in the Commissioners map 90-Ka was acceptable. In the result, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The relief claimed in the suit was against the flow of the water from the Nabdan only.
4. On
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
