SARASWATHI AND ANR. versus S. GANAPATHY AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 988 · Decided: 04-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SARASWATHI AND ANR. 
v. 
S. GANAPATHY AND ANR. 
APRIL 4, 2001 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Section JOO-Second appeal-Owner sold one of his properties to a 
purchaser-Sale deed mentioned a certain area-Subsequently, owner sold his 
adjoining property to a second purchaser-Sale deed again mentioned acer-
tain area-Both sale deeds mentioned that the parties had right of ingress and 
egress aver an open passage on the west side of the property sold to the second 
purchaser-Second purchaser executed a Release Deed relinquishing all his 
rights except a right of passage in the open space-Second purchaser put up 
some additional constructions on the property and unilaterally cancelled the 
Release Deed-First purchaser filed suit for declaration that the second pur-
chaser had encmached upon his land and also claimed easement rights of light 
and air-Trial court held that the second purchaser could only claim such 
rights as were reserved under the Release Deed-Trial court also held that the 
first purchaser was entitled to recover a certain area encroached upon by the 
second purchased-First purchaser was also granted pennanent injunction 
restraining the second pu•chaser from blocking the drainage and against 
stoppage of light and air-Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the 
trial court to-detennine the question of encroachment by appointing a Commis-
sioner-Trial court, after considering the Commissioner's report, held that 
F 
there was a larger area of encroachment and that thei~ was blockage of rain 
water outlet and obstruction of light-First appeal dismissed on the ground that 
the area mentioned in the first purchaser's sale deed was to be taken as correct 
and if the first purchaser was found to be in actual occupation of a lesser area 
then the same to be treated as encroached upon by the second purr:haser-High 
G 
H 
Court allowed the second appeal-Correctness of-Held: From the Commis-
sioner's report it is clear that the first purchaser is actually encroaching upon 
a large area of the second purchaser-First purchaser is, therefore, in posses-
sion of more area than what was purchased by him-Hence, High Court rightly 
allowed the second appeal. 
Easement: 
988 
i 
SARASWATIIT v. S. GANAPATHY 
Easements Act, 1882 : 
989 
Light and air-Easement rights of-Owner sold one of his properties to 
a purr:haser-Sale deed mentioned a certain area-Subsequently, owner sold 
his adjoining property to a second purr:haser-Sale deed again mentioned a 
cei1ain area-Both sale deeds mentioned that the pmties had right of ingress 
and egress over an open passage on the west side of the property sold to the 
second purr:haser-Second purr:haser executed a Release Deed relinquishing 
all his rights except a right of passage in the open space-Second purchaser put 
up some additional constructions on the property and unilaterally cancelled the 
Release Deed-First purchaser filed suit for declaration that the second pur-
chaser had enc1vached upon his land and also claimed easement rights of light 
and air-Trial court held that the second purchaser could only claim such 
rights as wei~ reserved under the Release Deed-First appeal dismissed-High 
Coult allowed the second appeal-Validity of-Held : Both the properties 
initially were held by the original owner-Therefore, water flowed into open 
space belonging to him-In such a case there is no question of any easement 
rights-No person has the right to have water ftvm his propelty flow onto land 
of his neighbour-No such right granted under sale deed-Hence, High Court 
rightly allowed second appeal. 
The 2nd respondent sold one of his properties to the appellants. The 
sale deed mentioned a certain area. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent sold 
his adjoining property to the 1st respondent. The sale deed again men-
tioned the property to be of a certain area. Both the sale deeds mentioned 
that the parties had the right of ingress and egress over an open passage on 
the west side of the property sold to the 1st respondent. However, the 1st 
respondent executed a Release Deed relinquishing all his rights except a 
right or passage in the open space. 
The 1st respondent after purchasing the property put up some addi-
tional constructions on the property and unilaterally cancelled the Release 
Deed. The appellants filed a suit for declaration that the 1st respondent 
had encroached upon the land belonging to the appellants and also c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.