Madras High Court (S. Sounthar, J.; decision dated 21-04-2026) dismisses the second appeal SA No. 288 of 2026 (with connected CMP No.9919 of 2026) filed under section 100 of CPC by J.Loganathan, plaintiff in O.S.No.6316 of 2013 (XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai), who had sought declaration that he acquired easementary right of air and light through two ventilators fixed in the ground and first floor eastern wall of his building, and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove a wall obstructing free flow of air and light. The suit was decreed by the trial court (judgment and decree dated 02.01.2018), but on appeal by the defendants in A.S.No.166 of 2023 (XX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai), the first appellate court reversed the findings and dismissed the suit (judgment and decree dated 15.10.2025). The defendants claimed to be only lessees under Thiruvadurai Aadeenam, absolute owner of the property, and had objected to the suit for non-joinder of the Aadeenam; they later remained exparte at the trial stage. Holding: since the plaintiff sought a declaration of an easementary right of air and light, the owner of the eastern-side (servient) property, Thiruvadurai Aadeenam, should have been made a party defendant; in the absence of impleading the owner of the servient heritage, the owner of the dominant heritage is not entitled to the declaration prayed for, and a declaration of easementary right cannot be granted without hearing the owner of the servient heritage — the suit is therefore bad for non-joinder of a necessary party. The first appellate court's dismissal is upheld as free from error. Second appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; liberty expressly preserved to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit impleading the owner of the property on the eastern side of his building.
