ASSINGMENT

ONE
PROPERTY LAW

NAME- Ayisha basila Asharaf

CLASS- S5B
TOPIC-Chotey And Ors. vs Dal Chand And Ors.
SUBMISSION TO-
SUBMITTED on- 19/oct./2021

- Case Law -
Chotey And Ors. vs Dal Chand And Anr.
1
 -on 5 July, 1929

FACTS:
The plaintiffs they had a right to irrigate four
plots of land that has been numbered 2671, 2672, 2673 and 2674 with the
water taken from a well that was in plot 2670 also that plot did not belong
to the plaintiff’s, the plaintiffs had grown potatoes in all the plots except
plot 2671, the defendants, without any particular reason stopped the
plaintiffs from Irrigating the potatoes field and that a loss was caused to the
plaintiffs.
The defence was that the well belonged to the
defendants themselves, and that the plaintiffs had no right to cultivate their
lands with the water from the well of defendant, and that the plaintiffs were
not entitled to recover any damages.
This is the defendant's appeal and arises out of the
circumstances. The plaintiffs brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 600, as
damages on the above mentioned allegation.

THE ISSUES:
1. for How long have been the plots of the plaintiffs been irrigated with
water taken from the well in question situated on plot 2670?

2. Whether Bhola and Ramdei, the predecessors of the plaintiffs have

acquired any right of easement to cultivate the aforesaid three plots
out of the water taken from the wall in question?

ACTS AND SECTIONS:

2
 INDIAN EASEMENTS ACT, 1882
The Indian Easement Act, 1882, details the non-possessory rights of
property, i.e., the use of the facilities of the property without the title
and ownership of that property. 99acres.com examines the legal
application of this Act and its relevance in property dispute
proceedings.

Subject-EXTINCTION AND SUSPENSION OF EASEMENTS

Key Issues mentioned in the act-Whether an easement is
said to be suspended in the instant case?

Sections
Section 49: Where the dominant heritage is transferred or devolves, by
act of parties or by operation of law, the transfer or devolution shall, unless
a contrary intention appears, be deemed to pass the easement to the person
in whose favour the transfer or devolution takes place.
Section 8: Who may impose easements. -An easement may be imposed
by any one in the circumstances, and to the extent, in and to which he may
transfer his interest in the heritage on which the liability is to be imposed.

HELD:
 It cannot be laid down as a broad proposition of law that a tenant cannot
acquire an easement against property held by another tenant under the
same landlord. A tenant may acquire a right of easement to the use of water
for irrigation from a well owned by an adjoining tenant. An easement
remains suspended when the dominant and the servient tenements become
rested in the same person, but revives when the tenements again vest in
different persons.

JUDGEMENT:

3
The Judge of the lower court having jurisdiction to review decisions of a
trial-level or other lower court was holding the opinion that in spite of the
user of the well for 30 years, no right of easement accrued to the peoples
that owned the plots 2672 to 2674, because the owners of these plots and
plot 2670 were tenants of the same landholder.
according to the Section 8 of, Easements Act, an easement
can be imposed by a person who has no full title in his property provided he
has a right to transfer the interest. Such imposition made by the easement
will not last beyond the tenure of the person imposing the easement. on this
point of view, the broad proposition laid down by the lower Court that a
tenant cannot acquire an easement against property held by another tenant
is not based on any sound principle.

in most cases the defendants that are the tenants, but so far as the well is
concerned, they derived their ownership by purchase. The Judges of the
lower court found that the defendants acquired the well by purchase under
the sales that was made on 20th May 1896. also the thing to be noted is
that, the well was a saleable property. The occupier of it who transferred it
to the defendants could impose an easement on the well by 30 years' user,
which lasted to be approx., between 1860 and 1890. The respondents
acquired a right of easement over the well. After 1890, the appellants
obtained a sub-lease from the original tenants of plots 2672 to 2674 and
with that they started the cultivating the lands for 30 to 35 years by Section
49, Easements Act. After the discontinuance of possession on the part of
the plaintiffs, the easement was revived and the respondents were entitled
to enforce it.

I truly believe that the plaintiffs had a right of easement for irrigating their
lands with the water from the well owned by the appellants. In the result,
the appeal fails. There is a cross-objection on the part of the respondents. It
relates to costs. The costs were at the discretion of the Court below and I
see no valid reason to interfere in the matter of costs. as a result of which,
the appeal as well as cross-objection was dismissed with costs.