Virupaksha v. Siddamma
Rule established
Once an easement is extinguished by merger (S.38), it does not automatically revive on subsequent separation of the properties
Facts
- A had an easement of way over B's land
- A purchased B's land (merger: same person owns both heritages)
- The easement was extinguished by merger under S.38
- A later sold one of the plots to C
- C claimed the original easement revived
Issue
- Whether an easement extinguished by merger under S.38 automatically revives when the merged properties are subsequently separated (sold to different persons).
Held
- No automatic revival. Once extinguished by merger, the easement is permanently terminated. On subsequent separation, the new owner must acquire a fresh easement (by express grant, necessity, or prescription). The original easement does not "sleep" during merger and "wake up" on separation.
Ratio Decidendi
S.38 is absolute in its effect: merger completely extinguishes the easement. There is no concept of "dormancy" or "suspension" in merger. The legal fiction is that the easement ceases to exist entirely. A fresh acquisition is the only way to re-establish it.
How to use it in an exam
Use when the problem involves merger followed by sale. Key line: "Easement extinguished by merger does not revive on separation; a fresh acquisition is required."
Source
Source: Mulla, Indian Easements Act
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.