MARIYAYI AMMAL AND OTHERS Vs. ARUNACHALA PANDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants. The suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using a passage in front of the plaintiff's house to go to the south into the public lane running from west to east, it may be convenient to refer to the Commissioner's plan Ex. A. 6, for the purpose of location of the plaintiff's and defendant's houses and the disputed passage.

(2.) Mr. Vishwanath Aiyar, however, argues that the necessity to get into the southern lane through this passage, which is admittedly the most convenient means of access to the southern lane, cannot be said to be extinguished on the ground that the same lane could be approached through other means, because the right which the defendants have in respect of the easement is a right in respect of the disputed passage to enter into the southern lane and it cannot be varied or modified and it is not open to the plaintiff to direct the defendants to proceed by other ways which might reach the southern lane.

(3.) In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to understand what an easement of necessity is. An easement of necessity is not as such defined in the Act, but Sec. 13 deals with an easement of necessity or quasi-easements. Section 13 says that when one person transfers or bequeaths immoveable property to another, under Cl. (a) if an easement in other immoveable property of the transferor or testator is necessary for enjoying the