G V RAMA MURTY PATNAIK Vs. MINAKETAN SENAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, being unsuccessful in both the courts below, has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff's case in short is that he has acquired easementary right by prescription by enjoying for more than 20 years the free flow of air and light to a room in the first floor of his house described in the plaint, and that the defendants by constructing a house close to his said house have obstructed the free flow of air and light to the plaintiffs said room thereby causing material injury to the comfortable use of the said house by the plaintiff. On that allegation the plaintiff has prayed for mandatory injunction against the defendants directing them to demolish their said building in the vicinity to the extent of 10 cubits in height.

(3.) The defendants contest the suit by stating that the plaintiff has not acquired the easementary right claimed by him; there is no obstruction to free flow of air and light to the plaintiff's building due to the , construction of the defendants* house; and that the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party, i. e. the owner of the house.