Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The suit was contested by the defendant who controverted the allegations of the plaintiff and, inter alia, pleaded that the wall was common wall and that he had a right to raise the wall without the consent of the defendant. He denied that the plaintiff had acquired right of easement of air, light and sun through the ventilator. He further averred that the pillar was in existence since long and he simply renovated it. Some other pleas were also taken but they do not survive in the appeals.

12. If the matter is examined from this point of view, it is clear that every owner has same rights in a party-wall and he is entitled to its user in a reasonable way. He can even raise its, height provided he admits the newly erected portion of the wall, a joint property of all the co-owners. He can also support his building on the common wall if that does not cause damage to the other co-owners. However, if a co-owner wants to raise the construction on the common wall with the purpose of ousting the other co-owners the ousted co-owners are entitled to raise objection regarding the construction.

"When a co-owner uses the joint wall for. the improvement of his property, without injuring the wall or the adjoining property and not claiming the additional structure as his own, it cannot be said that the co-owner who builds upon common wall makes an unreasonable use of common wall. Merely because a co-owner makes a profitable or reasonable use of the joint property, it cannot be said that the other co-owner is ousted as the additional structure is the property of both. If a co-owner raises the common wall and claims the additional structure as his exclusive it may amount to ouster of the other co-owner. If a co-owner raises the common wall and such an act is likely to cause damage to the adjoining property or the common wall the use thereof is not reasonable and any co-owner who is aggrieved may have remedy at law. When without injuring the common wall or the adjoining property a co-owner makes a reasonable or profitable use of it, it cannot be said that he makes an unreasonable use of the property. The houses which the common wall divides were built many years ago; they would require repair or need modern reconstruction to suit the requirements of the occupiers. The society moves fast, the changes are speedy and to hold that one co-owner has absolute right to prevent the other co-owner from making profitable or reasonable use of the common wall would prevent citizens from making profitable use of their properties."

19. We have duly considered the argument but are not impressed with it. The party-wall is ordinarily a solid wall throughout its entire extent. It follows that the co-owners of the wall do not have a right to open ventilators or windows or other openings in it except by an agreement with the other owner or under a statutory provision. Our attention has not been drawn to any statutory provisions under which a co-owner can keep any window or ventilator or opening in a common wall. The result is that if any window etc. has been kept in such a wall, the other co-owner has a right to close and make use of that portion on his side. The co-owner having window, etc. cannot acquire right to easement of light and air through a party-wall. In the above view we are fortified by the observations in P.W. Holden v. A. J. Tidwell, 49 LRA (NS) 369, where it was held that a party-wall must ordinarily be construed to mean a solid wall without windows and openings and in the absence of statutory regulation or express agreement between the parties, the right exists either to close such openings or windows as may have been placed in the said wall at a time when one of the lots was vacant (see head-note 3). The plaintiff-respondent, in our view, cannot, therefore, claim right of easement regarding air and light to his building through the common wall. In this situation it cannot be held that the respondent shall suffer any damage, if the appellant supports his building on the party-wall and closes the ventilator. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be accepted.