Summary
The respondents are the owners of two houses adjacent to each other and also to the property of the appellants. From the roof of the appellants 'structure three morries (narrow outlets) opened towards the property of the respondents.
Subsequently, the appellants raised the height of their existing structure and constructed two additional storeys on it. At the same time, the appellants after blocking the three original morries opened nine new morries, three on each floor. The appellants also opened new windows. The respondents however blocked these windows by raising the height of their walls.The respondents filed suits praying for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from using the new morries and from removing the obstruction to the windows.The Sub-Judge granted the injunction. The appellants'appeals before the District Judge and the High Court failed.Before this Court the appellants contended that (1) that the owner of an easement was entitled to alter the mode and place of enjoying the easement and (2) no customary right of privacy had been pleaded or proved by the respondents.Dismissing the appeal, it was,HELD: (1) Section 23 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 provides that the dominant owner may, from time to time, alter the mode and place of enjoying the easement provided that he does not thereby impose any additional burden on the servient heritage. In this case the burden of easement had been increased by the action of the appellants. [739E-G][Harvey v. Walters, [1872-73] L.R. 8 C.P. 162, distinguished.]PG NO 736PG NO 737 (2) The conduct of the defendants in opening nine morries in the place of three morries and thereby damaging the properties of the respondents is such that no discretion need be exercised in their favour by allowing them to raise the issue for the first time that the three morries on the first storey merely constitute a change in the mode or place of enjoyment of the easement. [740B-C; 739G-H](3) The appellants cannot be restrained from opening new windows, as no customary right of privacy appears to have been pleaded or proved. At the same time, the respondents are fully entitled to block the same and the appellants are not entitled to remove the obstruction. [740G-H]See the full content of this document
Extract
Smt. Anguri & Ors. VS. Jiwan Dass & Anr.
PETITIONER: SMT. ANGURI & ORS.Vs.RESPONDENT: JIWAN DASS & ANR.DATE OF JUDGMENT30/08/1988BENCH: KANIA, M.H.BENCH: KANIA, M.H.SHETTY, K.J. (J)CITATION: 1988 AIR 2024 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 736 1988 SCC (4) 189 JT 1988 (3) 528 1988 SCALE (2)560ACT: Indian Easements Act, 1882: Section 23-Dominant owner entitled to after mode and place of enjoying easement provided no additional burden imposed-Held opening of nine morries in place of three has damaged the properties.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 532 of 1986.From the Judg...
See the full content of this document