Bhandari, J. —This is a Civil Second Appeal and raises an interesting point of law. The plaintiff appellant is the owner of a shop in village Atbara (Tehsil Sojat). The plaintiff opened two windows in his shop towards the south. The defendants erected a wall adjacent to the southern wall of the plaintiffs shop and closed the two windows. The plaintiff, therefore., filed a suit for demolition of the wall erected by the defendants and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from closing the windows. The allegation of the plaintiff is that the land on which the defendants had erected the wall was the property of the State being a public lane and the defendants had no right to erect the wall and close the windows of the plaintiffs shop, thus obstructing the passage of light to his shop. The defendants pleaded that there was an old wall of the pol at the spot which belonged to the defendants who were residents of Barfon-ki-bas and on its falling down the wall was repaired. They also pleaded that the plaintiff had not acquired any prescriptive right of easement and that the defendants had the right to close the windows by constructing the wall in dispute. Both the lower courts have dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had not acquired any right of easement for the passage of light and air through the windows. The trial court did not give any finding whether any substantial injury had been caused to the plaintiff and the lower appellate court observed that :

"It is also necessary for the plaintiff to prove substantial loss or damage, to achieve success in his suit.

and dismissed the suit on the ground that such a loss was not proved. Hence this second appeal on behalf of the plaintiff.

2. It is a matter of regret that the findings of fact given by the lower appellate court are not very precise. However, the facts established by the evidence on record may be taken to be as follows :

(a) That the plaintiff had acquired no right of easement by prescription in respect of the two windows.

(b) That the defendants had no right of ownership or occupation of the land where they had erected the wall, it being the State land serving as a lane for going to the locality known as Tiafron-ka-bas;

(c) That there was some diminution in light and the air available to the shop of the plaintiff on account of the closure of the two windows by the defendants.

3. The contention on behalf of the plaintiff appellant is that the defendants who were neither the owners nor the occupiers of the land had no right to erect the wall and close the windows of the plaintiffs shop and the plaintiff can maintain a suit to remove the constructions so raised by the defendants irrespective of the fact whether he had acquired any right of easement or not.

4. The point for determination this Second Appeal is whether under the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff can maintain the suit for demolishing the obstruction raised by the defendants, the plaintiff having acquired no right of easement by prescription and the defendants being neither the owners nor the occupiers of the land over which they had erected the wall.

5. The plaintiff is the owner of the shop and he has the exclusive right which is available to every owner of immovable property to enjoy it. He has further the right to enjoy without disturbance all the natural advantages arising from its situation. (See sec. 7 of the Indian Easements Act). Illustration (d) to sec. 7 speaks of one such right available to the owner of the property and it says that :

"An owner of the land has the right to so much light and air as pass vertically thereto."

6. Let us now examine what is the right of an owner of a land in respect of lateral light. There is no doubt that an owner may have certain advantage in enjoying lateral light arising out of the situation of his land. Bramwell., L.J. in Bryant vs. Lefever (1) has observed, as follows :

"What, then is the right of land and its owner or occupier? It is to have all na

Click Here to Read the rest of this document