Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.

1. This is an appeal from a decree of Mr. Justice Bakewell directing the defendants to remove a certain wall which is marked in the plan, and perpetually restraining them from erecting any wall or building so as to obstruct the access of light and air through the three openings on the southern wall of the plaintiffs house. The allegation in the plaint - paragraph 4 is : - "That the defendants have recently commenced to erect on the first floor of their house a structure which is calculated to. interfere with the plaintiffs right of light and air to the windows, doors and rooms on the southern side of her house, which right the plaintiff claims as a right by reason of her house having been built for upwards of 20 years, and thereby having acquired by peaceable enjoyment a right of light and air thereto."

2. Now, three points were taken in appeal. The first point was that the plaintiff had not proved 20 years enjoyment of the right by way of easement. The second point was that, assuming 20 years enjoyment was proved, there was no such damage as would give to the plaintiff a right of action with reference to the acts done by the defendants. The 3rd point was that, assuming there was a right of action, the proper remedy was by way of damages, that the injunction was improperly granted and that that injunction should be dissolved.

3. Now, the first point was not very seriously contested. A Municipal document was put in which goes to show that the building was originally constructed in 1888 or 1889. Two witnesses were called with reference to this part of the case on behalf of the plaintiff. One was the man who actually built the house in question. He said he built it 20 or 22 years ago for Andoo Chetty. In cross-examination he no doubt said that he could not say whether it was 16, 18, 20 or 22 years ago that he built the house. Another witness was called on behalf of the plaintiff with regard to this question. He was the plaintiffs agent who looked after her affairs in Madras. He said that "the house was built 20 or 25 years ago. I remember it being built. The whole house was built then." As to the time when the house was built he was not shaken in cross-examination.

4. Then, with regard to the question whether the house had continued to be the same as it was originally constructed, the first witness, who was the builder, said : "I saw the house this morning, and there was no alteration since Andoo Chettys death and he also said "during Andoo Chettys time no alteration was made." The other witness said : "No alteration has been made in No. 8. It exists as it did 20 years ago." It was suggested that some of the sons of Andoo Chetty were alive and that they might have been called. This is a fair observation. Still, I think there is evidence to show that the plaintiff has had 20 years enjoyment of the easement right which she claims in this case. Therefore, I agree with Mr. Justice Bakewells finding as to that.

5. Then, as regards the second question, that is, whether the right by way of easement is established by the evidence. It is argued that the erection of the wall did not cause such damage to the plaintiff as would give her a cause of action. Now the finding of fact by the learned judge is in the following terms - (paragraph 3 of the judgment): - "I think it is clear that the wall complained of by the plaintiff is not intended to form part of a building, but is a bare wall intended to obstruct the access of light and air to the openings in the plaintiffs southern wall, or at most to secure privacy to defendants house. The wall is practically flush with the plaintiffs wall and prevents the verandah windows from being opened, and thus not merely diminishes the amount of light and air coming to the openings in plaintiffs house, but practically prevents all access of light and air to them and thus totally deprives him of the right which he has hitherto enjoyed. It is obviously of considerable impor