The husband of the appellant and the 1st respondent own houses which are adjacent to each other divided, by a common wall. The appellant’s house has got a first floor but that of the 1st respondent has only an open terrace. The suit of the husband of the appellant was in effect to get a declaration which would enable him to have access to the southern wall in the first floor of his house, through a staircase inside the 1st respondent’s house, so that he could effect repairs to the windows in his southern wall and also white-wash the same. Both the Courts below have concurred in dismissing the suit on the view that the appellant had not established any such right.

On behalf of the appellant, it is argued that since she has no other access to her southern wall and that as she has an easementary right to light and air through the windows in that wall, the Courts below should have given the declaration asked for by the plaintiff. It is stated that there is no other access to the southern wall and therefore the appellant has an easement by necessity. On behalf of the appellant reliance is placed on Bhagavatula Subramanaya Sastry v. Bhagavatulu Lakshminarasimham1. In that case a