( 1 ) IF the expenditure incurred by the respondent herein, for enforcing his right to maintain the edge of the roof (eaves) of his thatched shed projecting into the neighbouring land of the appellants herein, not to speak of the costs incurred by the appellants, in defending themselves in the litigation; was utilized properly, an independent permanent structure could have been brought about. However, the firm resolve of the respondent had led to this, and other related litigations, for the past half a century. ( 2 ) THE respondent is the owner of a plot of about 200 Sq. yards of land in a village of West Godavari District. The 1st appellant (for short the appellant) is his immediate neighbour on the northern side. An old thatched shed was existing, in the plot of the appellant, with its eaves, projecting into the plot of the appellant, to an extent of about 3/4th of a yard. It is not necessary to refer to the litigation instituted through O. S. No. 343 of 1952, in this regard. ( 3 ) THE respondent filed O. S. No. 422 of 1975 in the Court of District Munsif, bhimavaram, initially, for the relief of perpetual injunction and thereafter, for mandatory injunction, against the appellant. It was alleged that the appellant constructed a terraced house in his plot, in such a way, as to project the shades of the doors and windows, to overshadow the eaves of the thatched shed of the respondent. He claimed the relief of declaration, as to his easementary rights, and a permanent injunction. Mandatory injunction was also sought, for removal of the shades, as well as a compound wall marked as U. C. in the plaint, to enable him to have access to the plot of the appellant, for carrying out repairs to the eaves. ( 4 ) THE appellant filed a written-statement, denying the allegations of the respondent. He pleaded that the house constructed by him, did not, in any way, pose threat to the eaves of the thatched shed of the respondent. He had stated that the flow of the water from the shades on the doors and windows is towards north, and that the eaves were in no way endangered. ( 5 ) THROUGH its judgment dated 30-11-1976, the trial Court dismissed the suit. He had stated that the flow of the water from the shades on the doors and windows is towards north, and that the eaves were in no way endangered. ( 5 ) THROUGH its judgment dated 30-11-1976, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Thereupon, the respondent filed A. S. No. 76 of 1987 in the Court of District Judge, West godavari, at Eluru. The appeal was allowed on 13-4-1994. Hence, this second appeal by the defendant in the suit. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the right of the respondent herein to have the eaves, projecting into the land of the appellant as well as the right, to let off the rain water, over the roof of the thatched shed, through the said eaves; is intact, and that there was no basis for the Lower Appellate court in reversing the well-considered judgment of the trial Court. He further contends that the thatched shed had since collapsed, and that at present, it does not exist. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the very construction of shades by the appellant, overlapping the eaves of the thatched shed of the respondent had the effect of defeating the easementary rights, and that the Lower Appellate Court appreciated the matter from proper perspective. He contends that a valuable right, that had accrued to the respondent for the past several decades; cannot be permitted to be defeated by the appellant. He contends that the thatched shed is still in existence. ( 8 ) AS observed earlier, the subject-matter of this second appeal is very small, but on account of the prestigious fight undertaken by the respondent, complex litigation has ensued and endured for decades. The very fact, that as many as 7 witnesses were examined on each side, and 12 documents were marked on behalf of the respondent, and 24 documents on behalf of the appellant; discloses the resolve of the parties. The trial Court framed 9 issues, at the initial stage, two additional issues on 17-2-1975, and three additional issues on 5-11-1976, and thereby exposed its vulnerability, to cantankerous litigation. The trial Court framed 9 issues, at the initial stage, two additional issues on 17-2-1975, and three additional issues on 5-11-1976, and thereby exposed its vulnerability, to cantankerous litigation. It would be surprising to know that the litigation did not stop in the precincts of the Courts, but also has spread to the Police and Revenue Authorities, in the form of complaints, submitted in this regard. ( 9 ) THE respondent who deposed as pw-7 did not allege that the eaves of his thatched shed were either removed or otherwise interfered with, by the appellant. His only complaint was that, the respondent constructed a house, in his own plot, but projected the shades over the doors and windows, at a higher level, in such a way, as to oversee that portion of the eaves, which had projected in, to the land of the respondent. His allegation, that the water from the shades would fall upon the eaves of the thatched shed; stood belied with the submission of the Commissioners report, to the effect that no pipes have been opened from the shades towards the thatched shed. ( 10 ) SO far as the claim of the respondent, for removal of part of the compound wall of the premises of the appellant, for providing access to him for repairs of the eaves is concerned, it can safely be branded as absurd and vexatious. Whatever may have been the circumstances under which the eaves of the thatched shed were projected into the neigbouring land, obviously, at a time, when cordial relations existed, between the respective owners, continuance of the same for decades together itself is an extraordinary phenomenon. It is not as if the so-called easement is related to free-flow of light and air. The respondent wanted an independent access into the plot of the appellant, for the purpose of carrying on the repairs to the eaves. The respondent attempted to provide new dimensions to the law of easements. ( 11 ) BE that as it may, the insistence by the respondent, that the appellant cannot construct building in his own house, that too without causing any damage to the obsolete eaves, is nothing but gross misuse of process of law. It appears that the respondent had kept and maintained the thatched shed only with a view to initiate or proliferate the litigation against the appellant. It appears that the respondent had kept and maintained the thatched shed only with a view to initiate or proliferate the litigation against the appellant. It is on account of such litigious people, that the other parties to the litigation, as well as various agencies, including the courts, are made to spent their valuable time for the unproductive, unnecessary and frivolous things. ( 12 ) THE trial Court appreciated the matter with reference to the evidence on record and contentions of the parties and arrived at a just and proper conclusion. The lower Appellate Court wasted its time and energy, in extending the scope of the suit, that too, by permitting additional evidence and allowing the appeal, by granting all the reliefs and awarding costs against the appellant, throughout. Any prudent person in the place of the respondent, would have constructed a permanent building in the place of thatched shed, and would have avoided unnecessary litigation. This Court does not find any basis in the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court. ( 13 ) THERE is dispute as to the existence of the thatched shed at present If the attitude of the respondent is logically projected, he is sure to claim rights against the appellant in respect of the new construction, which he may bring about. To put an end to such contingency, it is directed that the easementary rights enjoyed by the respondent, in respect of his thatched shed would not survive the said structure. ( 14 ) THE second appeal is accordingly allowed with costs, throughout, and the judgment and decree passed by the Lower appellate Court are set aside.