Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2) Section 51 of the Easements Act regarding the revival of easements does not apply in the circumstances of this ease for this case is not covered by any of the clauses mentioned therein.
(3) Section 24 of the Easements Act applies only so long as the right exists, that is, till the dominant heritage is not destroyed.
(4) Section 25 of the Easements Act did not apply to the facts of this case for there was no question of any repair to a wall.
(5) The Court has no power to revive easements beyond Section 51 of the Easements Act.

An easement extinguished under Section 46 revives when the grant or bequest by which the unity of ownership was produced is set aside by the decree of a competent Court. A necessary easement extinguished under the same section revives when the unity of ownership ceases from any other cause.

A suspended easement revives if the cause of suspension is removed before the right is extinguished under Section 47

10. A resume of these sections would show that the plaintiff had a right of vertical support from the walls of the defendant's room. Now it has to be considered as to whether this right of his has been lost on account of the falling of the western and the southern walls of the defendant's room. In my opinion that right subsists and is not lost. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant loses sight of the facts of the case. Before we can apply Section 45 of the Easements Act there must be a finding to the effect that there is a complete destruction of the dominant or servient heritage. This is not the case here. Dominant heritage in this case is the house ABCD of which the room standing on the defendant's room CEFG is a part. It cannot be said in this case that there was a complete destruction of the dominant heritage and on the facts of this case and admission of the defendant it is also proved that there is neither complete destruction of servient heritage also.

Therefore there is no question of the applicability of Section 46 of the Easements Act. Consequently it is not necessary to notice Section 51 of the Easements Act which deals with the revival of the extinguished easements under Section 45 of the Easements Act. Since I have found above that there is no complete extinction of either the dominant heritage or the servient heritage Sections 24 and 26 come in play and in my opinion illustration (1) of Section 24 of the Easements Act clearly applies to the facts of this case and the plaintiff was entitled to get the fallen wall constructed at his own expense. This disposes of the first four points raised by the learned counsel.

11. So far as point No. 5 is concerned I have already held that Section 46 of the Easements Act does not apply to the facts of this case. Consequently there is no question of any revival under Section 51 of the Easements Act,

12. The sixth and the last point raised by the learned counsel also has no force. For this case the defendant has only been directed to make the constructions at the expense of the plaintiff. This direction is made for his benefit. It is only when he fails to perform the act which is to his benefit that the plaintiff has been directed to get it done at his (Plaintiff's) own expense in order to enjoy the subsisting right of his. I am of opinion that the court was fully justified in making the direction made by it which is in conformity with the law and the various sections already noted above.