Law: Easements Act (V of 1882)

Section: 15

Easements Act (V of 1882) S. 15-Easement-Acquisition by prescription-Wall in dispute having a superstucture thereon from times immemorial-Superstructure belonging to defendant and his predecessors in interest and no objection ever raised by plaintiff or his predecessors-Defendant, held, acquired a right of support on wall by prescription-Whether defendant utilised such right of support for purpose of a wall or fur a lintel-Makes no difference as long as lintel did not damage wall underneath and more support was not sought to be extracted than what could be given by wall-Question whether wall was property of one party or other-Not relevant in circumstance. Date of hearing : 10th May 1974.                                                                                                                           JUDGMENT Mohammad Amin plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against Muzaffar AIL Mst. Aisha Bibi, Mst. Noor Fatima and Mst. Noor Zainab for a perpetual injunction directing Muzaffar Ali to remove a lintel from over a wall owned by Mohammad Amin and described in the plaint which was said to have been constructed without authority and further directing him to demolish that portion of the wall which was in excess of 15 feet in height. The basis of the suit was that one Budha the prepositus of defendant No. 1 had made that construction in the absence of the father of the plaintiff but had later accepted his mistake and had undertaken in writing to remove the structure as and when required by the father of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by Muzaffar Ali, defendant No. 1, who asserted that the wall in dispute belongs to him and that it was a part of a three-storeyed house belonging to him which had been in existence for 75/80 years. He further asserted that Budha was not his prepositus nor was he ever the owner of the house nor had he given any such written…