Question

Given below is a Statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer. 

Principle: The owner of immovable property is entitled to the column of airspace above the surface. However, the owner's right to air and space above his land is restricted to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures on it.

Factual Situation: Galaxy Cable TV Network Company is providing cable connections to their customers. One of the cables passes over the house of Mr. Vasanth Bhat., He is not a customer of the Network Company. The cable is neither attached to his house nor to any projection thereof.  
It is at a distance of 20 ft above the terrace of Mr. Bhat's two-storied house. Because of the cable, Mr. Bhat's son Sachin is unable to fly a kite from the terrace. Mr. Bhat requested the Network Company to change the position of the cable.  But the company did not bother to change it. One evening,  Mr. Bhat out the cable and cleared the airspace above his house. The Network Company suffered a loss of about  ₹ 1000.  They bring legal action against Mr. Bhat for recovery of loss suffered. DECISION: 

पर्याय

• The Network Company will succeed because the cable was not interfering with the ordinary use and enjoyment of Mr. Bhat's property. 
  

• The Network Company will not succeed because Mr.  Bhat has every right to endure proper enjoyment of  his property by removing objects causing trespass in  the air above his property to a reasonable extent  
  

• The Network Company will succeed because laying  cables is widely practiced in all cities like electricity  and telephone wires

• None of the above 

Answer 1

The Network Company will succeed because the cable was not interfering with the ordinary use and enjoyment of Mr. Bhat's property. 

Explanation:

The network company will succeed because the owner's right into the airspace above his property does not extend endlessly, further kite flying cannot categorically be assumed as ''NECESSARY" ordinary use and enjoyment of land. The company's act of passing cable above Mr. Vasanth Bhat's house will not be considered TRESPASSING. one can further add that even if the network company had wrongly trespassed Mr. Vasanth 's right he is not entitled to cut wire himself, his action of cutting wire himself will automatically attract legal action against him. "The Network Company will not succeed because Mr.  Bhat has every right to endure proper enjoyment of his property by removing objects causing trespass in the air above his property to a reasonable extent" is incorrect because of the above-stated reason. 
"The Network Company will succeed because laying cables is widely practiced in all cities like electricity and telephone wires" is incorrect as the wrong practice followed by many people does not make it right in the eyes of law. "None of the above" is not applicable as "The Network Company will succeed because the cable was not interfering with the ordinary use and enjoyment of Mr. Bhat's property"is correct.