owner of southern property will have right of access for repair of northern wall also.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.643 of 1985 on the file of the Fifth Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, are the appellants in the second appeal. They filed the suit for declaration that they have easementary right to receive light and air through seven windows on the northern wall of A Schedule property described in the plaint and as a consequential relief for mandatory injunction directing the respondents herein to remove the thatties and other materials that had been placed obstructing the light and air failing which to have the same done through process of court; for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with their easementary right to receive light and air through the seven windows on the northern wall of A Schedule property from the northern property, i.e., B Schedule property; for permanent injunction restraining them form interfering with their right to go to the B Schedule property for making repairs and making constructions in A Schedule property; for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to remove all trees and plants that had been planted in the B Schedule property, failing which to have the same done through process of court; and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from putting up any constructions or planting trees and other things in the B Schedule property.

2. Their case as set out in the plaint was as follows:

They were the owners of A Schedule property, each of the plaintiffs having purchased an undivided 1/3rd share from the previous owner under a registered sale deed dated 5. 1980, pursuant to which they were put in possession of the property and were also in possession and enjoyment. The property originally belonged to one Rao Bahadur Krishnamachariar. He purchased the property as a site from Srirangam Municipality. Within two or three years of his purchase, he put up a pucca construction. The construction put up by him was still there and no alteration had been made after the construction, the building having been in existence for more than 57 years at the time of filing the suit. There was a building wall on the northern end of the plaintiffs’ property. In that wall there were seven windows and the windows opened towards north. One window was in the bedroom, three windows in the hall, one window in the store room and one window in the kitchen. Above the windows there were ventilators and each window had got a sun-shade projecting on the north. Such a projection had been in existence from its inception i.e., from the time of the construction of the building. The rooms situate south of the windows had been receiving light and air from the vacant site on the north. By enjoyment of the light and air through the windows from the north, an easementary right had been prescribed. The property north of the A Schedule property originally belonged to one Ethiraja Valliammal. There was an agreement entered into between Rao Bahadur Krishnamachariar and Ethiraja Valliammal represented by her power agent Srinivasachariar on 3. 1927. As per the terms of the agreement Ethiraja Valliammal undertook not to make any construction adjoining th northern wall of Krishnamachariar. She further undertook not to cause any obstruction to the windows or to the weather boards. She had also undertaken to leave 5 feet lane north of the northern wall of the plaintiffs’ building. Five feet space was agreed to be left as a lane so as to enable the windows to get light and air and also not to cause any damage to the weather boards projecting from the windows and also to enable the southern owner to do all repairs to his walls by passing through that lane. A lane as contemplated under the agreement was actually left. The plaintiffs’ predecessors were also carrying out the repairs to the wall by passing through the lane. This right had been acquired by prescription. The plaintiffs’ had a right of urban servitude on the B Schedule property. Taking advantage of the