- Case Study: In Dattatraya Shankar v. Gangabai, the court ruled on the scope of easements for water. A has an easement to draw water from a spring located on B’s property. Over time, A increases the volume of water drawn to irrigate additional fields. Can B take legal action?
a) Yes, as the increased usage imposes an additional burden on the servient tenement
b) No, as easements for water allow unlimited usage
c) Yes, but only if B proves that the spring has been depleted
d) No, unless A’s use explicitly violates the terms of the easement
- Case Study: In Kamalamma v. Subramanya Iyer, the court addressed easements for air and light. A neighbor, X, constructs a high wall that blocks natural light to Y’s windows. Y claims a prescriptive easement for light and air. However, X argues that the windows were opened only 15 years ago. Can Y enforce the claim?
a) Yes, as 15 years of usage is sufficient for air and light
b) No, as 20 years of uninterrupted use is required for prescriptive easements
c) Yes, if Y can prove significant damage caused by the obstruction
d) No, unless Y obtains a court order to demolish the wall
- Case Study: In Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, the court dealt with extinguishment of easements. If A owns a dominant tenement with a right to drain water through B’s property but later stops using the drain for 10 years, can B extinguish the easement?
a) Yes, as 10 years of non-use extinguishes the easement
b) No, as easements cannot be extinguished by mere non-use
c) Yes, but only if B files a legal suit for extinguishment
d) No, unless A explicitly abandons the easement in writing
- Case Study: Based on the judgment in Hamid Khan v. Ahmed Khan, A permits B to use a pathway through A’s land for personal purposes. Later, B begins using the pathway for commercial transport. Can A revoke B’s right?
a) Yes, as B exceeded the agreed-upon use
b) No, as the right once granted cannot be revoked
c) Yes, but only with prior notice to B
d) No, unless A proves actual damages caused by the commercial use
- Case Study: In Gokaldas v. Kesavadas, the court ruled on implied easements during property sales. If X sells part of their property to Y but fails to explicitly mention access to a common well on the retained property, can Y claim an implied easement to use the well?
a) No, as the right to use the well must be explicitly mentioned in the sale
b) Yes, as an easement by implied grant arises during the severance of ownership
c) No, unless Y compensates X for the use of the well
d) Yes, but only if X consents to the usage
- Case Study: In Subramanian v. Ramanathan, A owns a property with a private pathway that provides access to a temple. Over time, members of the public begin using the pathway for temple access. A objects and closes the pathway. Can the public claim a prescriptive easement?
a) Yes, as the pathway was used for public benefit
b) No, as prescriptive easements cannot be claimed by the public
c) Yes, if the pathway has been used for 20 years without interruption
d) No, unless A explicitly permits the public use
- Case Study: In Ponnuswami Goundan v. Ramalingam, the court ruled on wrongful obstruction of easements. If X obstructs Y’s right of way, causing financial losses to Y’s business, what remedies can Y seek?
a) Y can seek compensation and an injunction to remove the obstruction
b) Y can revoke X’s ownership of the servient tenement
c) Y can claim adverse possession of the obstructed area
d) Y has no remedy unless the obstruction is permanent
- Case Study: In Mohammad Baqar v. Naim-un-Nisa, the court addressed easements for religious practices. If a mosque relies on access through private land for prayers, and the landowner blocks the access, can the mosque claim an easement?
a) Yes, as the easement supports religious practices
b) No, as religious practices do not create easements
c) Yes, if the access has been used for 20 years continuously
d) No, unless the landowner consents to the easement
- Case Study: In Muttumal v. Kantilal, the court examined easements for privacy. If a servient owner constructs a balcony overlooking a dominant tenement’s courtyard, violating privacy, what remedy is available to the dominant owner?
a) The dominant owner can demand removal of the balcony
b) The dominant owner can claim monetary damages but cannot demand removal
c) The servient owner has the right to modify their property as they wish
d) The dominant owner has no remedy unless physical damage occurs
- Case Study: In Rajeshwari Devi v. Ramchander Prasad, the court dealt with easements for underground water pipelines. A had an easement to pass underground water pipes through B’s property. When A installs larger pipes without B’s consent, can B object?
a) Yes, as the modification imposes additional burden on the servient tenement
b) No, as the easement includes the right to modify the pipes
c) Yes, but only if the installation causes physical damage to B’s property
d) No, unless B proves a legal violation by A
- Case Study: In Anil Kumar v. Dinesh Babu, the court ruled on easements of necessity. A sells part of his property to B, leaving B’s landlocked. A later offers a narrow footpath for access, but B insists on a wider path for vehicles. Can B claim a wider path?
a) Yes, as the easement of necessity includes vehicular access
b) No, as the dominant owner cannot demand a wider path
c) Yes, but only if B compensates A for the additional burden
d) No, unless the necessity is proven in court
- Case Study: In Keshavlal v. Dayalal, the court ruled on interference with easements for light and air. A constructs a new building that blocks light to B’s windows, which B has been enjoying for 25 years. Can B enforce an easement claim?
a) No, as blocking light does not constitute interference
b) Yes, as the prescriptive period for light and air has been satisfied
c) No, unless B had obtained prior legal recognition of the easement
d) Yes, but only if the interference causes physical damage to B’s property
- Case Study: In Krishna Rao v. Sudhakar Rao, the court examined revocation of licenses. A grants B a license to use a shed on A’s land for storing goods. Later, A revokes the license without notice, causing loss to B’s business. Can B claim damages?
a) No, as licenses are revocable at will
b) Yes, as licenses cannot be revoked without notice
c) No, unless the revocation violates a prior agreement
d) Yes, but only if the license was coupled with a grant
- Case Study: In Shivaji Rao v. Madhav Rao, the court dealt with misuse of easements. A uses a pathway on B’s land to access his house but starts allowing neighbors to use the same path. Can B restrict A’s use?
a) No, as A has the right to decide how the pathway is used
b) Yes, as A cannot extend the easement to others
c) No, unless B can prove financial loss due to the misuse
d) Yes, but only with court approval
- Case Study: In Baldev Singh v. Charan Singh, the court addressed easements for agricultural use. A has an easement to draw water from B’s pond for irrigation. When A begins using the water for a factory, B objects. Is B’s objection valid?
a) No, as A can use the water for any purpose
b) Yes, as the easement is limited to agricultural use
c) No, unless B can prove that the factory use depletes the water source
d) Yes, but only if B compensates A for stopping the usage
- Case Study: In Jagannath v. Hariram, the court examined the creation of easements by prescription. A builds a stairway encroaching on B’s property and uses it for 20 years. Can A claim a prescriptive easement over the stairway?
a) Yes, as 20 years of continuous use creates a prescriptive easement
b) No, as encroachments cannot create easements
c) Yes, but only if A compensates B for the encroachment
d) No, unless B explicitly allowed the construction
- Case Study: In Shanti Devi v. Vishnu Prasad, the court ruled on easements of necessity in urban areas. A sells part of his urban property to B, leaving B’s portion without access to a public road. Can B claim an easement of necessity?
a) Yes, as access to a public road is essential
b) No, as easements of necessity do not apply in urban areas
c) Yes, but only if B pays A for the access
d) No, unless B files a formal suit to establish the easement
- Case Study: In Rameshwar v. Laxmi Narayan, the court addressed extinguishment by merger. A owns both a dominant tenement with an easement and the servient tenement. Does the easement extinguish?
a) Yes, as merger extinguishes the easement
b) No, as ownership does not affect the easement
c) Yes, but only if A explicitly relinquishes the easement
d) No, unless A sells one of the properties
- Case Study: In Veer Singh v. Ram Singh, the court examined whether a private pathway can be used as a public way after the dominant owner’s death. A has an easement to use a pathway on B’s land for agricultural purposes. After A’s death, can the heirs of A continue using the pathway for the same purpose?
a) Yes, if the right of easement is transferred to the heirs
b) No, as the easement dies with the owner
c) Yes, but only if the heirs maintain the agricultural purpose
d) No, unless A had specifically granted the easement to the heirs
- Case Study: In Madhuraj v. Raghunath, the court ruled on the rights of a dominant owner when an easement is being obstructed. A holds an easement of way across B’s land. If B erects a fence blocking the easement, can A take legal action?
a) Yes, A can file for the removal of the obstruction and damages
b) No, as easements are not enforceable if the servient owner objects
c) Yes, but only if A can prove loss of income due to the obstruction
d) No, unless A provides prior notice to B about the obstruction