( 1 ) THE plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondents are neighbours. There is a wall 'fbcgd' belonging to the plaintiff separating the defendants properties from his. There is also a window in the portion of the wall 'fb'. In order to effect repairs and keep the said wall in good condition, it is necessary for the plaintiff to periodically enter into the defendants' vacant land and effect the required repairs. Defendants denied the plaintiff's right. ( 2 ) THE trial Court held that the plaintiff has not proved the right of easement by way of prescription under S. 15 of the Easements Act. It further held that the plaintiff had the right to go to the defendants' hittal to effect the repairs. It further held that the plaintiff had not proved that there was any obstruction by the defendants and therefore declined to grant him any decree. But, in the operative portion of the decree passed by it, it is observed as follows:"in the result, I dismiss the plaintiff's suit with a direction that the parties shall bear their own costs. Considering the nature and circumstances of this case, with the observation that the plaintiff has a right to repair his walls which is admittedly not denied by the 1st defendant in his evidence. "as against this decree, the plaintiff preferred CA. No. 149/1965 before the civil Judge at Hubli. The learned Civil Judge concurred with the finding of the trial Court, but in view of the cross-objections filed by the defendants, he modified the order by directing that the plaintiff has no right to repair his wall. So that the portion of the trial Court's decree recognising the right of the plaintiff to repair his wall was deleted. The plaintiff having lost his suit in both the Courts below, has filed this second appeal. ( 3 ) SHRI Kothavale, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, draws my attention to the undisputed facts recorded by the lower appellate judge. The plaintiff having lost his suit in both the Courts below, has filed this second appeal. ( 3 ) SHRI Kothavale, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, draws my attention to the undisputed facts recorded by the lower appellate judge. The lower appellate Judge refers to the plaintiff's statement that he has to repair the wall and for that purpose he has to enter the defendants' hittal and there is no other way for doing so, and that wall is in existence since about 30 years and according to him he has to enter the hittal of the defendant through the roof of his house with the help of a ladder to effect the necessary repairs. The learned appellate Judge also refers to the evidence of the first defendant wherein he admits the plaintiff's ownership of the wall in question and that it was built over 30 years ago. The defendants further say that if the walls are to be repaired, it can be repaired, only by entering his backyard. The Courts below while noticing these facts, refrained from granting the plaintiff any relief as he did not plead clearly the easement of necessity. It appears to me that the admission of the defendants and the evidence of the plaintiff established that there is no other way to repair the plaintiff's wall except by getting into the hittal of the defendants Though the cleanings are not clear, the parties are not prejudiced thereby as the facts construing the plea are already on record. The plaintiff relied on the provisions of Ss. 7 and 24 of the Easements Act If once it is held that the plaintiff has an easement of necessity, he has accessory right under S. 24 of the Easements Act. In support of this contention, Shri Kothavale invites my attention to the decision of the Madras High Court in Damodarswami Naidu v S. T. Damodaraswami Naidu, (1965) 2 Mad. 522, wherein it is observed that:"where the boundary wall of a house is exposed to sun and rain, the owner of that house is entitled to have it protected and for that purpose the neighbour is liable to give access to the owner of the wall for purposes of repairing and whitewashing it. 522, wherein it is observed that:"where the boundary wall of a house is exposed to sun and rain, the owner of that house is entitled to have it protected and for that purpose the neighbour is liable to give access to the owner of the wall for purposes of repairing and whitewashing it. The neighbour will be entitled to a similar right as against his adjoining owners This is a well recognised right of owners of properties in urban areas and is one of the miscellaneous easements known as urban servitudes. Such a right need not be acquired by prescription. There may be cases of implied grant of easements for repairs by long acquiescence. Where the wall in question is an ancient one and it has necessarily to be maintained by periodical repairs a Court can infer an implied grant by acquiescence. But such acquiescence would naturally and necessarily be only subject to the limitation that the neighbour would not be inconvenienced nor condemned to keep the space open for ever. "with these observations I respectfully agree. Therefore, it appears to me that in the circumstances of this case, and particularly when the plaintiff would be prejudiced by an unconditional dismissal of his suit, what the trial Court has done is just, legal and equitable. It declined to grant the decree in favour of the plaintiff for the reason that he has not established that the defendants offered any obstruction. The deletion of the observation in the decree passed by the trial Court as directed by the lower appellate Court may cause irremediable hardship to the plaintiff while it would be in consonance with the plaintiff's rights which are admitted by the defendants. Therefore, I set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court and restore those of the Civil Judge, Ranebennur in L. C. Suit No. 33,59. ( 4 ) IN the circumstances of the case, I direct each party to bear his own costs. --- *** --- .