Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant against the dismissal of his suit for declaration and injunction by the Courts below in a concurrent manner. ( 2. ) PLAINTIFFS are real brothers and the defendants are also real brothers. Both the parties own adjacent houses. There is a single wall supporting the house which has been claimed by the plaintiff as a common one belonging to the parties to the suit. It has been pleaded that the disputed wall was in dilapidated condition, therefore, the same was reconstructed in the year 1955 by the ancestors of both the parties. It has been further pleaded that for more than last 20 years both the parties were keeping their possession over it as co-owners and it was being treated as a common wall without any hindrance or obstruction. On 12-8-1975, the defendants tried to forcibly occupy the entire disputed wall. A complaint was lodged on 13-8-1975 with the Police Kotwali, Sehore and S. D. M. Sehore. No action was taken on it, therefore, the plaintiffs issued a notice with a request to the defendants for not causing obstruction. The defendants refuted the allegations and asserted their exclusive ownership which forced the plaintiffs to institute a suit in November, 1975 with a prayer that the plaintiffs and defendants be declared co-owners of the disputed wall and the same be declared as a common wall belonging to them. A decree for perpetual injunction was also sought restraining thereby the defendants from making any construction or change in the disputed wall without consent of the plaintiffs. Additionally, a mandatory injunction was sought for removal of the wooden log kept by the plaintiffs on the entire width of the disputed wall. ( 3. ) DEFENDANTS submitted a joint written statement denying thereby the claim of the plaintiffs. They inter alia contended that the disputed wall is exclusively owned and possessed by them from the time of their ancestors. It was denied that the wall was constructed jointly by the ancestors of the parties. It has been specifically averred in the written statement that the sanctioned map for construction of the defendants house was obtained in March, 1918. The disputed wall has been clearly shown as a wall of their house in the sanctioned plan. Accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed. ( 4. It has been specifically averred in the written statement that the sanctioned map for construction of the defendants house was obtained in March, 1918. The disputed wall has been clearly shown as a wall of their house in the sanctioned plan. Accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed. ( 4. ) LEARNED Trial Judge after recording the evidence on record, dismissed the suit on merits on 3-7-1987. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred appeal which, too, was dismissed. Thereafter, this appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-" (i) Whether the Courts below should have held the suit wall to be partition wall in view of the presumption of law attaching therewith re-enforced by the factum of user by the plaintiffs from their side of the wall ? (ii) Even assuming the wall to be of the ownership of the defendants inasmuch as it was the dividing wall between the two properties, whether the defendants can be permitted to make such excessive use of the wall as to deny right of support to the plaintiffs ?" ( 5. ) SHRI J. L. Soni, learned counsel for the appellant made his submissions which have been considered in the light of the material available on record. ( 6. ) LEARNED Trial Judge has discussed the evidence in paragraphs-6, 7 and 8 of his judgment and has arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the disputed wall is a common wall. Further while deciding other issues, it has been found as a fact that it is not proved that the disputed wall was constructed jointly by the parties. On the contrary, the sanctioned map of the year 1918 is on record as Ex. D/l-C which supports the defendants that the disputed wall was/is a part of their house. Thus, the findings of the learned Trial Judge which are further confirmed by the learned lower appellate Court are the outcome of the correct appreciation of the material on record. Learned counsel Shri J. L. Soni, although, took this Court through the evidence but, he failed to point out any perversity in appreciation of evidence. Substantial question of law No. (i) is about presumption which would be available only if there is no direct evidence on record. In the light of sanctioned map of the year 1918 (Ex. Learned counsel Shri J. L. Soni, although, took this Court through the evidence but, he failed to point out any perversity in appreciation of evidence. Substantial question of law No. (i) is about presumption which would be available only if there is no direct evidence on record. In the light of sanctioned map of the year 1918 (Ex. D/l-C) there would be no scope for drawing presumption about common wall. Hence, the substantial question of law No. (i) is answered against the appellants. ( 7. ) AS regards substantial question of law No. (ii), it may be seen that the trite law on the subject is that a plaintiff cannot legally base his claim on ownership and easement simultaneously. He shall have to give up either of the pleas at the time of adducing evidence. This having not been done, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to base his claim on easement. It may further, be seen that plaintiffs have not based their case on the right of receiving support from the disputed wall. In order to claim lateral support there ought to have been express and specific pleading because the right of an owner of a land in its unburdened and natural condition to claim support shall have the support naturally rendered by subjacent and adjacent land is a natural right arising as an incident of ownership of the land. Natural right of support from subjacent and adjacent is available only when the land is in natural condition without being excavated or subjected to artificial pressure. However, this is not the position in the case of right of lateral support for buildings. As held in the case of Gopalakrishna panicker vs. Thirunakkara Devaswom, AIR 1959 Kerala 2002, the right of lateral support for buildings on dominant heritage is not a natural right but can only be claimed as easement. Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar (as he then was and later on became Chief Justice of India) has held in the case of Rasiklal Manilal Bhatt and others vs. Savailal Hargovindas Sur, AIR 1955 Bombay 285 that if the right of support is claimed in respect of structure, such a right may be claimed only by a process of prescription. Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar (as he then was and later on became Chief Justice of India) has held in the case of Rasiklal Manilal Bhatt and others vs. Savailal Hargovindas Sur, AIR 1955 Bombay 285 that if the right of support is claimed in respect of structure, such a right may be claimed only by a process of prescription. He has held :- "if on his land the plaintiff had built his structure and the structure had stood for the statutory period of twenty years, then it may have been open to the plaintiff to allege that the right to receive support from the adjoining plot of the defendant had been acquired by the plaintiffs wall by prescription, and if in such a case the said right had been impaired or diminished, the plaintiff may have had a cause of action. " Although, section 7 of the Easement Act, 1882 makes a provision for right of easement for every owner on immovable property, but the same has been found to be applicable where the land is in natural condition and is not burdened by artificial pressure like that by buildings. In the case of support to buildings, an easement may be claimed only by prescribing it under section 15 of the Easement act, I derive support for this purpose from Division Bench of Allahabad High court in the case of Bhagwan Das vs. Bibi Iqbal Sultan Banu Shahar Khurshed begam, AIR 1929 Allahabad 885. It is observed that plaintiffs/appellants in order to make out a case of right of support to his building is required to make out a case of easement under section 15 of the Easement Act by alleging the necessary facts. An easement has six essential characteristics :- (1) there must be a dominant and a servient tenement; (2) the easement must accommodate the dominant tenement; (3) the easement is for beneficial enjoyment of the dominant tenement; (4) the dominant and servient owners must be different persons; (5) the easement should entitle the dominant owner to do and continue to do, or to prevent and continue to prevent, something in or upon or in respect of the servient tenement; and (6) that something must be certain or well defined and capable of being subject-matter of a grant: ( 8. ) PLAINTIFFS/appellants were required to plead all the necessary facts to establish that their house (dominant heritage) enjoyed the lateral support of the disputed wall for last more than 20 years as an easement without interruption. Apart from this, the plaintiffs in order to succeed for perpetual injunction on the basis of right of support is required to make out a case of imminent danger of substantial degree in case of removal of support. In the case in hands the plaintiffs has virtually not pleaded the support enjoyed by the dominant heritage and further they, apprehended danger in case of removal of disputed wall. Division Bench of Nagpur High Court in Surendra Singh Inder Singh and another vs. Phirozshah Bairamji and another, AIR 1953 Nagpur 205 has held :- " (9) It is necessary to point out that pleadings in a case dealing with easement have to be very precise. As has been stated by Peacock in his law Relating to Easements in British India, Third Edition at page 608 as an easement is not one of the ordinary rights of ownership, it is necessary that either party claiming or relying on an easement should plead the nature of this title thereto so as clearly to show the origin of the right, whether it arises by statutory prescription, or express or implied grant, or the old common law method of a lost grant. ( 9. ) THUS, in view of the absence of the necessary averments and further in view of the necessary proof regarding acquiring the right of easement under section 15 of the Easement Act, the plaintiffs are not found to have prescribed the right of support and eventually cannot claim right of support under section 15 of the Easement Act. Accordingly, substantial question of law No. (ii) is also answered against the plaintiffs/appellants. ( 10. ) IN the result, appeal is dismissed, however, no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.