Whether can be acquired.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 68 of 1978. First Additional District Munsifs Court, Tiruchy. is the appellant in this second appeal. The appellant is the absolute owner of door No. 65, Bishop Road, Puthur, Tiruchy. The respondents, related as mother and son, are the owners of door No. 64, Bishop Road, Puthur, Tiruchy, situate immediately to the east of the house belonging to the appellant. The appellant claimed that the eastern wall of his house belonged absolutely to him as exclusive owner thereof and also by continuous possession and enjoyment and acquisition of prescriptive title thereto. According to the appellant, an ancient window existed in his eastern wall at a height of 12' and through that window, his predecessors - in- title and himself have been getting free air and light without any obstruction whatsoever for over the statutory period, that the respondents attempted to construct a building in their site and in that process, a wall close to the eastern wall of the appellant was about to be raised without any regard for the rights of the appellant and the respondents had also scooped about 9" inside the wall on the eastern side for about a length of 20' and were hurrying with the construction with a view to obstruct the window in the eastern wall of the appellant. It was under those circumstances, the appellant instituted the suit praying for a declaration that he is the exclusive owner of the eastern wall of his house and that he had prescribed to an easementary right of free light and air through the window that existed in that wall and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the wall as well as the window therein and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 50 for trespass and damage caused to the wall.

2. In the written statement filed by the respondents, they contended that door No. 64 and Door No. 65 originally belonged to one Parimanam Pillai having been purchased by him under a sale deed dated 29.11.1980 from one Appavu Pillai and pursuant to the partition between Parimanam Pillai and his younger brother Naga Pillai (grand father of the 2nd respondent), the premises bearing door No. 64 corresponding to old Door Nos. 16 and 17 had been in the possession and enjoyment of the father of the 2nd respondent Ponnusami Pillai and from the year 1898 onwards, the wall had been enjoyed only as a common wall. Even the partition deed, according to the respondents, referred to the wall as a common wall and as such, the claim of the appellant that he is the exclusive owner of the wall was unsustainable. The respondents claimed that in the common wall, their forefathers have erected tiled structure and terraced portion by inserting rafters and beams and as the appellant is not the exclusive owner of the suit wall, he is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the suit. The window in question, according to the respondents, was put up recently and the appellant had other windows for getting light and air on the south, west and north and therefore, the appellant really no cause for complaint. The respondents reiterated their right to put up the building within their own limits and disputed the claim of the appellant for recovery of damages.

3. Before the trial court, on behalf of the appellant, Exhibits A.1 to A.6 were marked and the appellant was examined as P.W.1, while, on behalf of the respondents, Exhibits B.1 to B.3 were filed and the 2nd respondent gave evidence as D.W.1. A commissioner was also deputed to make a local inspection of the premises and he submitted his report and plan, which were marked as Exhibits C.1 and C.2. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence as well as the features revealed by the report of the commissioner, the learned First Additional District Munsif found that the wall in dispute is the exclusive wall of the appellant, that the appellant had established an easementary right of light an