JOHN GEORGE BAGRAM Vs. KHETTRANATH KARFORMAH AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff alleges that as the owner of a house, 6 Old China Bazar, he is entitled to have the light and air enter through certain windows and a verandah; and that the defendant, by erecting a building near the said house and verandah, has obstructed the light and air, and rendered the house dark, unwholesome, and of less value. He prays for an order, directing the defendant to pull down his new building and for rupees 30,000, the damages alleged to be caused to him by its erection. It was proved that the house of the plaintiff has a frontage of 56 feet to the south, and is two stories high. The lower floor consists of godowns and offices. The upper story is used as a dwelling-house. In the middle of the south side is a verandah 22 feet 6 inches long which has three openings. There is a room lighted from the verandah with three windows, and on each side are rooms having windows looking to the south, two on each floor. The general line of the front of the plaintiff's house is about 17 feet from the boundary line which separates his own land from that of the defendant. The verandah projects from the front of the plaintiff's house, to within about three feet of the boundary line,. The height of the verandah to the ceiling is about fourteen feet. In the south-west corner of the plaintiff's lands is a tiled hut, the top of which is on a level with the floor of his upper rooms. It stands at a distance of little more than two feet from the dwelling-house, and extends from the west, eastwards, as far as the middle of the second window on the ground floor,. coming within five feet of the verandah. The land of the defendant adjoining the plaintiff's land on the south, is a strip about 15 feet wide, lying between the plaintiff's land and Canning Street. On this land, down to the month of July 1866, was a building used as a godown, standing closer to the boundary line of the plaintiff's and the defendant's premises, about fifteen feat in height, being in fact very little higher than the level of the floor of the plaintiff's verandah. As long as that godown remained unaltered, there was a clear view over the godowns in all directions from the upper story of the plaintiff's house.

(2.) It was proved, that for 30 or 40 years prior to July 1866, the buildings on the plaintiff's and the defendant's land, had remained in the same condition. In July 1866 the defendant rebuilt his godown and added a second story to it, carrying his wall to a height of 25 feet 4 inches. The wall is set back a little, and now comes within four feet and 11 inches of the plaintiff's verandah at one part, and 4 feet 1 inch at another. It extends from the west, to within about five feet of the eastern extremity of this verandah, rising to the height of eleven feet above the level of the floor, the top being only two feet and a half below the line of the interior of the roof of the verandah.

(3.) Mr. Osmond says : "the new building has, undoubtedly, injured the light and air of the plaintiff's house. So far as the air is concerned, it is materially affected; as to light, to some extent. In my opinion, the "alteration has diminished the value of the plaintiff's house."