The owner or occupier of the dominant heritage is entitled to enjoy the easement without disturbance by any other person.
A, as owner of a house, has a right of way over Bs land. C unlawfully enters on Bs land, and obstructs A in his right of way. A may sue C for compensation, not for the entry, but for the obstruction.
The owner of any interest in the dominant heritage, or the occupier of such heritage, may institute a suit for compensation for the disturbance of the easement or of any right accessory thereto; provided that the disturbance has actually caused substantial damage to the plaintiff.
Explanation I.-The doing of any act likely to injure the plaintiff by affecting the evidence of the easement, or by materially diminishing the value of the dominant heritage, is substantial damage within the meaning of this section and section 34.
Explanation II.-Where the easement disturbed is a right to the free passage of light passing to the openings in a house, no damage is substantial within the meaning of this section unless it falls within the first Explanation, or interferes materially with the physical comfort of the plaintiff, or prevents him from carrying on his accustomed business in the dominant heritage as beneficially as he had done previous to instituting the suit. Explanation III.-Where the easement disturbed is a right to the free passage of air to the openings in a house, damage is substantial within the meaning of this section if it interferes materially with the physical comfort of the plaintiff, though it is not injurious to his health.
(a) A places a permanent obstruction in a path over which B, as tenant of Cs house, has a right of way. This is substantial damage to C, for it may affect the evidence of his reversionary right to the easement.
(b) A, as owner of a house, has a right to walk along one side of Bs house. B builds a verandah overhanging the way about ten feet from the ground, and so as not to occasion any inconvenience to foot-passengers using the way. This is not substantial damage to A.
The removal of the means of support to which a dominant owner is entitled does not give rise to a right to recover compensation unless and until substantial damage is actually sustained.
Subject to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877), sections 52 to 57 (both inclusive), an injunction may be granted to restrain the disturbance of an easement-
(a) If the easement is actually disturbed-when compensation for such disturbance might be recovered under this Chapter:
(b) If the disturbance is only threatened or intended-when the act threatened or intended must necessarily, if performed, disturb the easement.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 24, the dominant owner cannot himself abate a wrongful obstruction of an easement.
This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Persons accessing this site are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice in India abroad regarding their individual legal, civil criminal issues or consult one of the experts online.