Facts
[B.] is the owner of parcels No. a, b and c in Bellwald. He has leased parcel No. d from [C.] from 30 August 1981 for twenty years, i.e. until 30 August 2001. Since around 1992, he has no longer used this leased land and has also left the aforementioned own parcels fallow. Without knowledge of the lease agreement with [B.] , the heirs of [C.] have allowed [A.] to use parcel No. d, who has enclosed this and other parcels with a wire fence, which also includes the edge parts of parcels a, b and c. [B.] has repeatedly called on [A.] to remove the fence on his properties, or on parcel No. d. After [A.] had not complied with this request, [B.] removed the fence on the parcels belonging to him and on parcel No. d on 10 July 1999. [A.] then sued [B.] for damages for the removal of the fence.Considerations
The Federal Court concluded that the District Court rightly did not qualify the decision of the Municipal Court as arbitrary. The District Court assumed that the removal of the fence by the appellant [B.] was to be considered as an abuse of rights, since he had not used the…