Co-owner can not acquire an easement in or over the joint property
On consideration of the statutory provisions mentioned supra, viz., Sections 4, 12 and 15 we do not think that the plaintiff, who is the co-owner of a joint wall, in this case, could have acquired an easement in respect of light and air, through the windows in the joint wall in question, whatever may be the period of his enjoyment prior to the date of the suit. As we have held that the normal method of enjoyment of joint wall also includes the enjoyment by opening windows or ventilators, which could not give rise to any trespass so as to give a cause of action for an obstruction or a suit in a Civil Court to prevent it at the instance of the other owner, we do not think that there is any acquisition of easement by the plaintiff in this case.
We have also mentioned that the agreement relied upon by the defendant, in this case, having been found to be true, valid and binding on the plaintiff, he cannot prevent the defendant by an injunction from constructing any superstructure basing it on the joint wall in question. The fact that it incidentally affects his light and air does not give him any cause of action in this case to obtain an injunction against the defendant.
We have also mentioned that the agreement relied upon by the defendant, in this case, having been found to be true, valid and binding on the plaintiff, he cannot prevent the defendant by an injunction from constructing any superstructure basing it on the joint wall in question. The fact that it incidentally affects his light and air does not give him any cause of action in this case to obtain an injunction against the defendant.
Andhra High Court
M. Nageswara Rao vs S. Ramachandra Rao on 13 July, 1972
Equivalent citations: AIR 1973 AP 86
