V.N. CHANDRAVADIVELU CHETTIAR Vs. V. VARADAPPA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in a suit for a mandatory injunction in respect of a construction of the first floor of the defendant's house is the appellant in the Letters Patent Appeal. The plaintiff pleaded that on the southern wall of the first floor there is a big window with a glass ventilator of about 6', that is 4' window with 3 doors and about a 2 ft. glass ventilator 4 1/2 ft. breadth opening into the tiled portion of the defendant's premises and four other ventilators of about 2 1/2 ft. X 2 ft. each on the southern side in the first floor of the said premises opening into the open terrace of the defendant's house. The relief was claimed on the ground that the defendant had, constructed a wall near the southern window with a glass ventilator which obstructed the free flow of air and light through the said window. The defendant denied that there was any obstruction to the facilities of light and air to which the plaintiff was entitled and therefore contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.

(2.) THE trial Court found that there was an infringement of the plaintiff's right and granted a decree as prayed for. But the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court partly allowed the appeal of the defendant and granted a permanent injunction restraining' the defendant from raising any constructions in his first floor in a manner which would interfere with the plaintiff's easement rights to receive air and light through the four ventilators which were embedded in the plaintiff's southern wall and which were marked in the plan Exhibit B -3. He directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 200 - with interest at six per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment, as damages for having blocked the window W -1 completely.

(3.) THE matter was taken in Second Appeal by the plaintiff against the order refusing mandatory injunction so far as the construction of the window was concerned. The learned Judge after referring to the observation of the appellate court that inspite of the construction the plaintiff would get sufficient light in all reasons and that the other windows were sufficient for comfortable habitation of the bed -room, observed that most people would like to get breeze from the southern side and to put up windows on the southern wall for that purpose. The learned Judge held that the owner acquired a valuable easementary right and he was entitled to damages. Though the learned Judge found that the sum of Rs. 200 awarded as damages was low, he did not determine the quantum as he was granting leave to appeal.