- Case Study: A owns a plot of land that is completely surrounded by B’s land, leaving no access to a public road. A uses a pathway through B’s land to access the road. Later, B constructs a wall blocking A’s access to the pathway. Can A claim an easement of necessity under the Indian Easement Act, 1882?
a) Yes, A has an easement of necessity since the land is landlocked
b) No, A must find another way without crossing B’s land
c) Yes, but only if A compensates B for the easement
d) No, because the easement was never explicitly granted
- Case Study: X, the owner of a dominant tenement, has an easement allowing drainage of water through Y’s land (the servient tenement). Y builds a structure that obstructs the flow of water, causing flooding in X’s land. What legal remedy does X have?
a) X can revoke Y’s ownership of the servient tenement
b) X can file a suit for damages and injunction
c) X can claim adverse possession over the servient tenement
d) X has no remedy as easements are non-binding agreements
- Case Study: P grants Q a license to use a portion of P’s land for temporary parking. Q constructs a permanent shed for parking without P’s consent. P objects and revokes the license. Can Q continue using the shed?
a) Yes, since Q has made permanent improvements
b) No, licenses can be revoked at any time by the grantor
c) No, unless Q has incurred substantial expenses based on the license
d) Yes, as licenses automatically transform into easements upon construction
- Case Study: R owns two plots of land, A and B. R sells plot A to S but continues using a water channel running from plot A to plot B. S later blocks the channel, arguing that R has no right to use it. Can R claim an easement?
a) Yes, R can claim an easement by prescription
b) No, R forfeited all rights upon selling plot A
c) Yes, R can claim a quasi-easement converted into an easement upon sale
d) No, unless S consents to grant a new easement
- Case Study: M has a right of way across N’s land. M begins using a new pathway that bypasses N’s land entirely. After 10 years, N blocks the original pathway. M objects, claiming the easement is still valid. Is M correct?
a) Yes, the easement remains valid regardless of non-use
b) No, the easement is extinguished due to abandonment
c) Yes, as easements are perpetual unless explicitly revoked
d) No, because a new path automatically cancels the old easement
- Case Study: A owns a factory and has an easement to discharge waste through a drain on B’s land. Over time, A expands the factory, increasing the volume of waste. B complains that the increased waste is causing damage to the drain. Can B take legal action?
a) No, as A has an easement to discharge waste
b) Yes, B can demand compensation for damages
c) Yes, B can seek an injunction to prevent excessive use of the easement
d) No, unless A agrees to modify the easement
- Case Study: Z purchases a property and discovers that the previous owner had allowed Y, a neighbor, to use a portion of the land for storage without any written agreement. Y continues to use the land after the sale. Can Z revoke Y’s usage rights?
a) No, as Y has acquired a prescriptive easement
b) Yes, as the usage was a mere license that does not bind the new owner
c) No, unless Z compensates Y for revocation
d) Yes, only if Z proves Y’s usage was unauthorized
- Case Study: X and Y are neighbors. Y builds a structure that blocks natural sunlight to X’s property, which X has enjoyed for over 20 years. Can X claim a right to light and seek legal remedies?
a) Yes, X can claim a prescriptive easement for light
b) No, the right to light must be explicitly granted
c) Yes, but only if X proves financial losses due to obstruction
d) No, as easements cannot apply to natural light
- Case Study: A dominant tenement has an easement for drainage through the servient tenement. The servient owner modifies the drainage system, causing inconvenience to the dominant owner. What is the legal recourse for the dominant owner?
a) The dominant owner can revoke the servient owner’s rights
b) The dominant owner can seek restoration of the original system
c) The dominant owner can demand monetary compensation
d) The dominant owner has no remedy
- Case Study: A shared driveway is used by P and Q, but P places obstacles that reduce Q’s access. Q files a suit. What factors will the court consider?
a) Whether Q’s use was prescriptive or by necessity
b) Whether P’s action causes substantial interference with Q’s easement
c) Whether Q compensated P for driveway maintenance
d) Whether P’s ownership takes precedence over Q’s easement
- Case Study: In the landmark judgment of Sundaram v. Valliammal, the court held that a dominant owner misused an easement right by extending it beyond the original scope. Based on this, if A, who has a right of way across B’s property, begins using the pathway for commercial transport instead of personal use as initially agreed, what is B’s legal remedy?
a) B can terminate A’s easement rights immediately
b) B can seek an injunction to restrict the usage to personal purposes
c) B has no remedy unless damages are caused
d) B can file a suit for adverse possession
- Case Study: In Ram Sarup v. Munshi, the court addressed the principle of easement by necessity. A owns landlocked property and relies on a passage through B’s land. Later, A builds a new road on another side of the property. Can B block the original passage?
a) No, the original easement of necessity is perpetual
b) Yes, as the necessity ceases with the new road
c) No, as A’s easement was acquired by prescription
d) Yes, but only with court permission
- Case Study: Referring to the principles in Sukhdev v. Ramesh Kumar, P, the owner of a dominant tenement, fails to maintain a private drain running through Q’s servient tenement. The drain clogs, causing damage to Q’s property. Can Q take legal action against P?
a) No, P has no obligation to maintain the easement
b) Yes, Q can file a suit for damages and compel P to maintain the drain
c) No, unless Q had provided written notice of the damage
d) Yes, but only for future damages, not past ones
- Case Study: Based on Krishna Bhat v. Ranga Shetty, A claims an easement by prescription for a pathway through B’s property, which A has been using for 15 years. Can A legally enforce the claim?
a) Yes, as 15 years of use is sufficient
b) No, as 20 years of continuous use is required for prescription
c) Yes, but only if A has explicit permission from B
d) No, unless B admits the existence of the easement
- Case Study: In Maneklal v. Hormusji, the court addressed the extinguishment of easements. If X owns a dominant tenement with a right of way over Y’s land but later merges X’s land with a neighboring plot that has independent road access, can Y extinguish the easement?
a) Yes, as the easement is no longer necessary
b) No, easements are perpetual unless explicitly revoked
c) Yes, but only if X consents to its extinguishment
d) No, as mergers of properties do not affect easement rights
- Case Study: A landmark case, Narayan Das v. State of Rajasthan, dealt with licenses. If R allows S to store goods on R’s land temporarily, and S builds a permanent warehouse without R’s consent, can R revoke the license?
a) Yes, licenses are revocable at any time
b) No, as the license becomes irrevocable after permanent construction
c) Yes, but R must compensate S for construction costs
d) No, unless R provides a valid legal reason
- Case Study: In Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai v. Purushottam, the court ruled on excessive use of easements. A owns a right of way over B’s land for personal vehicles but begins using it for commercial trucks. Can B object to this increased use?
a) No, as the easement permits vehicular access
b) Yes, as the increased burden on the servient tenement is not allowed
c) No, unless the trucks cause physical damage to B’s land
d) Yes, but only if B compensates A for blocking the access
- Case Study: Referring to Nathu Lal v. Soni Lal, A has an easement to draw water from a well on B’s land. Over time, A stops using the well after installing a borewell on their property. Can B extinguish A’s easement?
a) Yes, if A discontinues the easement with the intent to abandon
b) No, easements are perpetual unless legally revoked
c) Yes, but only if B compensates A for alternative arrangements
d) No, as the easement exists regardless of usage
- Case Study: Based on the judgment in Madhavan v. Keshavan, A claims a prescriptive easement for light and air through B’s property after 18 years of use. Can A enforce this claim?
a) Yes, as long as the use has been continuous and uninterrupted
b) No, as 20 years of use is required for light and air easements
c) Yes, but only if B has not objected during this time
d) No, unless A obtains a court order
- Case Study: In the landmark case Basavana Gowda v. Narayana Gowda, the court ruled on easement by implied grant. If A sells a part of their property to B but continues using a pathway on B’s land, can B object?
a) Yes, as A did not explicitly reserve the right of way
b) No, as an easement by implied grant exists for A’s continued use
c) Yes, unless A compensates B for the easement
d) No, as easements are automatically created in such cases