Owner of trees grown on his land has no right over branches hanging over adjacent land. Adjacent landowner has a right to prevent entry into his lands.

Naganna and others vs Muddamma. Original Suit 38 of 2017 decided on 1 August 2020. Judge Bharath Yogesh Karagudari. Court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Pavagada .

The plaintiff professes that,he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and the defendant is the owner of the Sy.No. Z6/1€ of Konanakurke village. Both the properties are the adjacent lands and the suit schedule property falls on the northern side of the defendant’s land. There are seven tamarind trees at the northern side of the defendants land. The branches of the said trees have spread over the land of the plaintiffs to the extent of 60ft to 70ft all along the border. Due to the above said tree branches it cast shadow over the land of the plaintiffs to the extent of one acer . Such being the case, the the plaintiffs are unable to grow any crops beneath the above said hanging branches. Therefore, the plaintiffs are incurring loss to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per year. Apart from this during the season the defendants unlawfully enter into the property of the plaintiffs with bullock cart and tractors to pluck the usfructs from the tamarind trees. Due to this act of the defendants the plaintiffs are put into sever damages to their land and crops. Furthermore, the plaintiffs submit that, they had made several attempts to resolve the dispute, but the defendants have not co-operated. Even they had lodged the complaint against the defendants. The effort to pacify the situation was futile as the defendant refused to act upon the terms. Even though the plaintiff is entitled for the usfurcts grown over his land, the defendants are enjoying the full benefits and income arising out of the said trees. the defendants, have no right over the suit schedule property and the branches stretched into his land. Hence, they cannot enter into the land of plaintiffs otherwise it amounts to violation of the plaintiff’s right. Hence, the plaintiff prays for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from entering into in the suit schedule property and award damages incurred by him.

Before looking into the ocular evidence and appreciation of evidence of the either side, it is necessary to understand the law and its position with regard to the branches of the tree hanging over the adjacent land. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held in Mannikkam Vs. Kamala 1P86KLT536-

Further the law on the question of the right of the owner of the land in respect of branches of trees overhanging over his soil is practically settled after the leading judgment of the House of Lords in Lemmon v. Mebb, (18P5) AC 1.

In Smith v. Giddy, (1Po4) fi KB 448, Kennedy, J. observed thus:—“If trees although projecting over the boundary are not in fact doing any damage, it may be that the plaintiff’s only right is to cut back the overhanging portions; but where they are actually doing damage. I think there must be a right of action. In such a case I do not think that the owner of the offending trees can compel the plaintiff to seek his remedy in cutting them.

In Davey v. Harrow Gorporation, (1P58) 1 QB 6o Lord Goddard, €.J., observed thus:— “…….where a tree encroaches on a neighbour’s land, whether by overhanging branches or by the penetration of roots, the adjoining owner can abate the nuisance by lopping the branches or grubbing up the roots. That the encroachment is not regarded as trespass, but as a nuisance, is well settled”.

Thus, in view of the above decisions it is settled law that, the owner of the tree does not have right over the branches hanging over the adjacent land. It is further stated that, hanging branches of the tree situated in the neighboring land amounts to nuisance. Therefore, the adjacent land owner has every right to claim a relief in accordance to the law. In other words the owner of the tree has no right over the branches hanging over the neighboring land and the neighboring land owner is entitled to avail relief accordingly at any point of time.

For the foregoing discussions and reasons stated therein suit of the plaintiff does succeed and deserves to be decreed. In the result I proceed to pass the following: