BANKEY LAL Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is one of two connected appeals by a defendant from two concurrent decrees of the Courts below ordering him to remove obstructions which prevented the plaintiff respondent to use certain par nalas. The plaintiff claimed an easementary right The defendant resisted both suits and contended that the plaintiff had not perfected his rights by prescription. He also pleaded that the easement, if any had been imposed by a mortgagee of the servient tenement in collusion with the plaintiff and had been extinguished on the redemption of the mortgage.

(2.) BOTH the Courts have found that the plaintiff had perfected his easementary rights and that the easement in each case had not been imposed by any mortgagee.

(3.) A person cannot claim the right to dump filth on another's land to save himself a little inconvenience or expense. Furthermore, it is open to the plaintiff to make a deal with the defendant and persuade him to sell or give him on perpetual lease a narrow strip of land to enable him to construct an underground or covered drain. But he cannot claim the right to discharge filthy matter on the appellant's land as a prescriptive right