Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Each co-owner is entitled to enjoy the common property in the best and most advantageous manner so long as there is no invasion or infringement of the rights of the other co-owner or co-owners. It is not open to the plaintiff to dictate to the defendants as to how best the defendant is to enjoy his rights to take water from the well of which he is a co-owner, having half share therein. If however, by the defendant enjoying his right to take water from the well there is a substantial deprivation or infringement of the rights of the plaintiff, in the sense that the plaintiff is effectively prevented from enjoying his right to take water from the well the plaintiff may have a cause of action".

4. When co-owners, at the time of partition set apart a portion of the common property to be used as common for the beneficial enjoyment of their respective shares that involves a dedication by each of them of a portion of the property, which but for such dedication would become his exclusive property. Each of such co-owners of the common property is entitled to use the property in the way most advantageous and beneficial to him without, at the same time causing any injury or detriment to the other co-owners. It is for such a co-owner to decide in what way he could so use the common property to his maximum advantage. It is not for the other co-owners to dictate in what manner the other co-owner should enjoy the common property so long as the user of the common property by one co-owner does not materially interfere with the use of the property by the other co-owners or affect their rights or in any way weaken, damage or injure the common property. Such co-owners are not entitled to prevent the other co-owner from using the common property in the way most beneficial to him. When co-owners of lands divide the lands, sometimes they set apart a common pathway for the beneficial enjoyment of their respective shares. Each co-owner is entitled to use the common pathway in a way most beneficial to him. If he happens to acquire a new land adjacent to his share and if that land can be approached through the common pathway, he cannot be prevented from using the common pathway provided his user of the common pathway does not interfere with the rights of the other co-owner in the common pathway. Similar instances are such as setting apart common property for use as thrashing floor or common passage in buildings. A co-owner of a common passage in a building can use such passage not only to reach his portion which he got under the partition but also to reach any addition which he may put or any accretion which he may make adjacent to his property provided his user of the common passage does not interfere with the user thereof by the other co-owners. Likewise, the common owner of a thrashing floor can use it not only for thrashing the paddy got from the land which he got for his share in the partition, but also for thrashing the paddy which he may get from a land which he may acquire subsequently. Such user so long as it does not interfere with the use by the other co-owners, cannot be objected to by the other co-owners. It would be most unreasonable to say that the paddy got by the co-owner from the land which fell to his share in the partition should alone be thrashed in the common thrashing floor. Cases of extension of balcony over common passage also stand in the same footing. The principle underlying the enjoyment of common property is that one co-owner can use the common property to his maximum advantage subject of course to the rights of the other co-owner not being any way materially interfered with and without damaging or weakening the common property.