Section 46 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 provides for Extinction by Unity of Ownership. Which of the following correctly explains this doctrine and its underlying conceptual basis and what happens if unity of ownership is subsequently severed?

Section 46 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 embodies the fundamental Roman law maxim nemini res sua servit* "no one can have an easement over their own property". When the dominant and servient heritages vest in the same person in the same capacity and for the same interest, the easement is extinguished because the very legal justification for the easement that it is a right exercised by one owner over another owner's land ceases to exist. This extinguishment is permanent, not temporary distinguishing it from suspension under Section 49 which operates where only a limited interest in one heritage vests in the owner of the other. Crucially, if the unity of ownership is subsequently broken (e.g., the owner sells one of the heritages), the extinguished easement does not automatically spring back to life. To restore the right, a fresh easement must be created either by express grant, or by the court implying it as an easement of necessity under Section 13 if the circumstances warrant it. This strict rule prevents uncertainty in property rights and ensures that any easement burdening a servient heritage has a clear, traceable legal origin after resale.