This regular second appeal raises important questions of law. Does the law permit a person to claim unhindered or unobstructed prospect or view to any building (here a commercial building) as a matter of right ? Can a person claim a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction based on the alleged violation of such a right ?

2. Heard Sri.K.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.T.N.Manoj, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The defendant in a suit for such a relief is the appellant and the plaintiff, the respondent. Parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendant. Decree passed by the trial court, which was confirmed in appeal, reads thus :

" That the defendant and his men are restrained by permanent prohibitory injunction from installing any new fixtures or stair case infront of the plaintiff's plaint schedule shop room causing any hindrance or obstructions to the view, vicinity or access to the plaint schedule shop room."

4. Even though in the plaint a right to have an unhindered or unobstructed vicinity is also claimed and the same was allowed by the courts below, the learned counsel for the plaintiff fairly conceded that there is no legal foundation for that claim. Further, the claim for a permanent prohibitory injunction based on a right called unhindered vicinity is not legally recognizable one and too vague to be granted by a court of law either under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 or otherwise. Therefore, what is remaining as a bone of contention is the legality and propriety of a legal right called the right to prospect (view) to the plaintiff's building.

5. Relevant pleadings, in nutshell, are as follows :

Plaint schedule shop room was purchased by father of the plaintiff from the defendant as per Ext.A1 assignment deed in the year 1996. Plaintiff's father died and the property devolved on his legal heirs, including the plaintiff. He is conducting jewellery business in the plaint schedule shop room. The defendant is the owner of a building complex in which the plaint schedule shop room is also a part. From the descriptions in the schedule to the plaint, it can be seen that on the western boundary of the plaint schedule shop room, a main road and an open space are situated. On the southern boundary, an open space and a way through the building exist. It is an admitted case that a staircase is in existence on the north-western corner of the building for facilitating access to the upper stairs. The plaintiff alleged that the PWD authorities had taken steps to widen the road on the west. It is the contention of the plaintiff that on taking measurements, the authorities found that the staircase built by the defendant on the north-western side of the room was projecting into the government puramboke. Plaintiff reliably learnt that the authorities had issued notice to the defendant directing him to demolish the staircase encroaching onto the puramboke. Plaintiff's jewellery is facing a main thoroughfare. His father purchased the room considering various factors like the road frontage, unhindered view from the road, easy access from the road etc. Plaintiff contended that the defendant was taking hectic steps to install some fixtures and a staircase infront of the shop room of the plaintiff causing obstruction to the view to his jewellery from the main road. Acts intended by the defendant may even adversely affect the access to jewellery.

6. The defendant filed a written statement stating that he did not receive any notice from the PWD authorities demanding demolition of the staircase. Defendant further contended that he has not trespassed into the government puramboke. The staircase is well within the limits of his property. Defendant also disputed the claim of the plaintiff based on a right to prospect. According to the defendant there is no cause of action for the suit.

7. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by parties and al