Sankaran Nair, J.

1. The defendant is the appellant. It is found by the lower courts that the appellants father having purchased the site in 1880, pulled down in 1883 the old dwelling houses and built a substantial terraced house which rose in height a good deal over the adjoining house of the plaintiff, his neighbour, on the east. He constructed a cornice partly for decoration and partly as a protection against the weather of the lower part of the wall. It is nearly a foot beyond the wall and overhangs the ground between, belonging to the plaintiff and also the roof of his house. The ground it overhangs has been found to be in the possession of the plaintiff from 1883, and as the cornice has not been in existence for 20 years, no easement has been acquired by the defendant : the lower Courts have accordingly declared that the plaintiff is entitled to remove the defendants cornice when a new wall which the plaintiffs building reaches it, in so far as it stands in his way of raising the wall.

2. It is contended before us on behalf of the appellant that though he may not have acquired any right under the Basements Act, yet as the cornice has been in existence for more than 12 y