The main legal point established in this judgment is that a natural right of support for land does not automatically extend to a right of support for buildings. A right of support for buildings must be acquired as an easement.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an action brought by the respondent Gopikrishna against the appellants for damages in respect of injuries, to the plaintiff's house and articles consisting of medicines, clothes, etc. The plaintiff claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 5,247-8-0. The learned Civil Judge, Ujjain, who tried the suit, gave to the plaintiff's a decree for Rs. 3,000 only.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff Gopikrishna is the owner of a house situated in Ramji-ki-Gali at ujjain. The defendants are the owners of an adjoining house situated to the west of the plaintiff's house. The walls of the two houses are contiguous touching each other lengthwise. The plaintiff alleged that the two adjoining houses, built independently but each on the extremity of its owner's soil, had lateral support from the soil on which the other house rested; that sometime in May and June 1943, the defendants employed some workers to pull down their house and reconstruct it; that in this work of reconstruction, the defendants dug the foundation of their house so deep as to remove some of the stones and some part of the soil, which formed the support of the plaintiffs house; and that on account, of this removal of the support and the negligence of the defendants in excavating their soil to a considerable depth, the plaintiff's house, which was a two-storeyed structure, fell down on 11th June 1943. The plaintiff claimed that on account of the collapse of the house, he sustained a loss of Rs. 3,000 in respect of the house itself and a further loss of Rs. 2,247-8-0 on account of medicines and miscellaneous articles which were completely destroyed. The defendants denied the plaintiff's claim. They pleaded that there was no negligence on their part in digging the foundation on their soil and that the plaintiff's house, which was a very old structure, collapsed due to heavy rains. The plaintiff's claim was first dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. He then filed an appeal in the Madhya Bharat High Court which was allowed and the case was remanded to the original Court for a proper trial according to law. The learned Judges of the Madhya Bharat High Court, who heard the appeal, came to the conclusion that the trial Court had confined its attention merely to the question of negligence on the part of the defendants in the construction of their house and had overlooked the question whether the plaintiff acquired by prescription a right of support in respect of house, although the question was one in issue between the parties. The parties did not produce any further evidence after the remand. In the meantime, the learned Civil Judge who had dismissed the plaintiff's suit was succeeded by another Judge. The successor Judge held on the evidence already on record that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he had a 'natural right of support' in respect of his building or that the defendants were negligent in digging the foundation, or that during the course of the digging operations, the defendants removed any stone or any part of the soil which afforded support to the soil under the plaintiff's house. The learned trial judge, however, thought that the defendant's negligence consisted in not making proper arrangement for the safety of the plaintiff's house when the excavating operations were on. According to the learned Judge, having regard to the condition of the plaintiff's house and to the fact that the work of digging the foundation was being carried on during the rains, the defendants were bound to shore up the plaintiffs building adequately; that they did not do this; that by merely putting three pillars to support the plaintiff's building while carrying on the excavating operations on their soil, the defendants could not be said to have taken proper and adequate care for the preservation of the plaintiff's house. On this basis, the defendants were held responsible for making good to the plaintiff the damage sustained by him by the collapse of his house.