KUNJAMMAL AND THREE ORS Vs. RATHINAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the scavenger from passing through the defendants house and cleaning the plaintiff's privy. The case for the plaintiff is that the scavengers have been cleaning his privy for over 60 years by going through the defendants doorway marked in the plan, crossing the defendants privy and then passing by a doorway in the wall to the plaintiff's privy which is adjacent and cleaning it. The first defendant's case was that the right was never exercised. The District Munsif found that the plaintiff's privy was cleaned for over 30 to 40 years by the scavenger passing through the defendants house as alleged in the plaint and that he was not obstructed before October 1917. The suit it was filed on the 19 of March 1918. On Appeal the a Subordinate Judge concurred with the findings of the District Munsif and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) It is contended in Second Appeal that Section 15 of the Easements Act cannot apply to easements like the, present one, that there was no allegation that the right claimed was exercised as a matter of right and to the knowledge of the defendant and that there can be no right in law to a right of way through a dwelling house.

(3.) Section 15 of the Easements Act deals with the requisites necessary to acquire a right under the Act but, as pointed out by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Rajrup Koer V/s. Abut Hossein (1981) I.L.R. 6 Calc. 394 (P.C.), other titles and modes of acquiring easements are not excluded or. interfered with.