### Mere enjoyment of poramboke land classified as a lane does not confer a right to discharge sewage.

The plaintiffs (appellants) purchased "A" schedule property (5088 sq. ft.) in 1987 via Sale Deeds (Ex-A.1, Ex-A.2). They also claimed possession and title over "B" schedule property, an L-shaped vacant strip of land in T.S. No. 315

They alleged that the first defendant was discharging sewage into "B" schedule property and defendants 3 and 4 were attempting to encroach upon it

The defendants claimed the strip belonged to them or was subject to easementary rights

The Trial and First Appellate Courts concurrently found that while defendants had no title, the first defendant had an easementary right to drain sewage and the second defendant to drain eave water, thus refusing a mandatory injunction to close the sewage outlet

The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court.

1. Whether the lower courts were correct in granting restricted permanent injunction and refusing mandatory injunction after finding plaintiffs established title/enjoyment and defendants failed to prove the same?

2. Whether the first defendant could be permitted to discharge eave/sewage water through "B" schedule property in the absence of a specific plea or oral evidence regarding easementary rights?

3. Whether the burden of proving easementary rights was wrongly shifted onto the plaintiffs?

4. Whether the discharge of drainage is permissible when municipality facilities are available to the defendants?

The Court applied the principles of the Easements Act, 1882, specifically regarding the right to enjoy property without nuisance and the limitations of easementary claims where alternative facilities exist.

It relied on the distinction between "natural rights" (drainage of rainwater/eaves water) and "easements" (artificial discharge of sewage)

The Court further applied the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100, regarding concurrent findings of fact, and the evidentiary value of the Town Survey Register (Ex-A.7), which classified the land as 'Sarkar Poromboke' (Government land) but noted the plaintiffs' occupation and its use as a lane

The High Court found that neither party successfully established absolute title over "B" schedule property, as the plaintiffs' own Sale Deeds described the area as a "lane" or "Poromboke land"

However, the Town Survey Register (Ex-A.7) confirmed the plaintiffs' enjoyment

The Court analyzed the Advocate Commissioner’s report (Ex-C.1), which proved that the first defendant was discharging sewage into "B" schedule property, causing damage to the plaintiffs' wall

The Court reasoned that since the first and second defendants had access to municipal drainage on the roads abutting their respective property fronts, there was no "necessity" or legal right to discharge sewage—an artificial nuisance—into a strip of land that lacked a proper channel

The Court distinguished between the natural flow of rainwater (permissible) and the discharge of sewage/drainage (impermissible nuisance) and held that a mandatory injunction was necessary to prevent health hazards and property damage

It held that while neither side proved title, the plaintiffs are entitled to a Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from discharging sewage/drainage water into "B" schedule property and from raising any construction

It further granted a Mandatory Injunction directing the first defendant to block/remove the sewage outlet

The parties are permitted to drain only natural rainwater or eave water, provided no nuisance is caused

The Court clarified that this judgment does not bar a future suit for declaration of title