1973 Supreme(Mad) 494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. S. Kailasam and S. Maharajan, JJ.
V. N. Chandravadivelu Chettiar .....Appellant(s)
Versus
V. Varadappa Chetty .....Respondent(s)
L.P.A. No. 77 of 1969.
Decided On : 09 October 1973
K. Kumaraswamy, P. Kannan and H. N. Markandan, for Appellant.
R. Janardhan Rao, for Respondent.
Grant of mandatory injunction when called for.
Headnote:Easements Act, 1882-Sections 33 and 35-Easement of light and air disturbed due to blocking up of window by defendant constructing wall-Held, plaintiff receiving sufficient light and air from other sources.
2. The trial Court found that there was an infringement of the plaintiff’s right and granted a decree as prayed for. But the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court partly allowed the appeal of the defendant and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any constructions in his first floor in a manner which would.
interfere with the plaintiff’s easement rights to receive air and light through the four ventilators which were embedded in the plaintiff’s southern wall and which were marked in the plan Exhibit B-3. He directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 200 with interest at six per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment, as damages for having blocked the window W-I completely.
3. The matter was taken in Second Appeal by the plaintiff against the order refusing mandatory injunction so far as the construction of the window was concerned. The learned Judge after referring to the observation of the appellate court that inspite of the construction the plaintiff would get sufficient light in all seasons and that the other windows were sufficient for comfortable habitation of the bed-room, observed that most people would like to get breeze from the southern side and to put up windows on the southern wall for that purpose. The learned Judge held that the owner acquired a valuable easementary right and he was entitled to damages. Though the learned Judge found that the sum of Rs.200. awarded as damages was low, he did not determine the quantum as he was granting leave to appeal.
4. The question that arises in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the right of the plaintiff to light and air has been in any way infringed and whether he is entitled to the relief of injunction or damages. The position of the window and the quantity of light and air which the plaintiff is receiving at present can well be stated by quoting the following observations of the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, who inspected the premises and made a report:
"The window W.I has now been completely blocked and the appellant (defendant) had recently put up rooms south of the said window. The entire hall of which the bed-room forms a portion has got 7 big windows W. 2 to W.8 with Venetian shutters fitted to them for regulating air and light and their dimensions are set out in the plan Exhibit B-3. Windows W-2 to W-6 are in the bed-room and windows W.7 and W.8 are in the northern portion. The bed-room is completely shut off from the northern portion by a wooden portion and does not have the benefit of light and air through the windows W.7 and W.8 When I inspected the premises on 22rd January,. 1964 at about 2-30 p. m. I, found windows W.2 to W.6 completely closed. It is clear that if these windows remain completely closed there will not be sufficient light and air for the comfortable enjoyment of the bed-room. On my direction, windows W.2 to W.6 were opened completely and the room be