The judgment established the principle that a right of passage and easement rights can be derived from an implied grant, and the court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the grantor's intention and the reasonable enjoyment of the premises.

JUDGMENT

Chakravartti, J. - This appeal is on behalf of the Defendant and arises out of a suit brought by the Plaintiff for a declaration of title to the western half of a narrow lane between his house and the Defendant's and certain other incidental reliefs. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal the lower Appellate Court modified the decree in certain respects. The Defendant has appealed and the Plaintiff has filed a cross-objection. The history of the matter is the following: A lady, named Swarnamoyee Devi, was the owner of several premises standing on Ananda Chandra Roy Street in the town of Dacca. By a Will, executed on the 29th January, 1913, she bequeathed a house, described as holding No. 2, to a daughter's son who is the Defendant in this case and the Appellant before me. By the same document she bequeathed another house, described as holding No. 3, to a daughter's daughter, who was the mother of the Plaintiff. A third house, described as holding No. 4, was bequeathed to another daughter's daughter, but no question arises with regard to that property.

2. The subject-matter of the dispute between the parties is a narrow strip of land lying between the two houses, namely, holding No. 2 and holding No. 3. This strip of land lies to the west of holding No. 2 and east of holding No. 3.

3. Swarnamoyee died on the 4th April, 1917, and probate of her Will was in due course taken by her executors. In 1920, the executors handed over the two houses to the respective legatees by a deed of assent. In that deed, the disputed strip of land was stated to be comprised in holding No. 2, that is to say. the house bequeathed to the Defendant. The Plaintiff or, to be more accurate, his mother, went into occupation of the holding No. 3 on the 16th February, 1920, and the Defendant went into occupation of holding No. 2 in April of the same year. It appears that some time later, the Plaintiff let out the eastern portion of his house to certain tenants and the suit out of which this appeal arises is an off-shoot of a long-drawn quarrel which broke out and has been going on between the Plaintiff's tenants and the Defendant.

4. It appears that during Swarnamoyee's life-time, there were only two doors in the two houses abutting on the strip of land in question. The door in the Plaintiff's house was situated in the north-eastern corner of that house, whereas the Defendant's door was situated in the north-western comer of his, the two doors almost facing each other. In 1919 or 1920, two windows were opened in the Plaintiff's building, both of which abutted on this strip of land and two corresponding windows were opened in the Defendant's building about the same time or some time later. I have omitted to mention that there was, at that time, a gate at the northernmost extremity of the strip of land, leading to the inner apartments of both the Plaintiff's and the Defendant's houses.

5. It appears that the dispute between the Plaintiff's tenants and the Defendant was submitted in the year 1933 to the arbitration of one Mr. Phanibhusan Banerjee who was a common relation of the parties. The settlement which was made was in the following form: The door in the Plaintiff's house was to be converted into a window; one of the windows was to be sealed altogether and the second window shifted a little so as not to face the corresponding window in the Defendant's house. The gate at the northernmost extremity of the narrow strip of land was to be shifted to the southernmost extremity, where the strip of land met Annada Chandra Roy Street. The terms of this settlement, it appears, were carried out and there was comparative peace till the year 1938.

6. In 1939, fresh trouble broke out. It is said that the Plaintiff's tenants began to misbehave towards the members of the Defendant's family taking advantage of the two windows in his house. To prevent this the Defendant hung some pieces of cloth from a wire so as to screen off his house and make it invisible from