The main legal point established in the judgment is the acquisition of a right to light and air through easement, based on the existence of windows and aperture for over 20 years, the credibility of witnesses, and the necessity of the windows and openings for the convenient enjoyment of the house.

1. The plaintiffs suit is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the right of easement to light and air through four openings. The City Civil Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit. On appeal Mr. Justice Phillips has reversed the decree of the City Civil Judge and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. The plaintiffs case is that her house, No. 135, Govindappa Naick Street, George Town, has three windows on the southern wall and an aperture over the southern wall through which light and air came into her court-yard. The windows are Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and the aperture is No. 2 and the windows and aperture have been; in existence for over 20 years and she has acquired an easement for light and air through them and the defendant, the owner of No. 136, is building flush with the southern wall and thereby threatens to interfere with her easement right.

3. The defence is that the windows were put up and the aperture came into existence only ten years ago and the plaintiff has not acquired a right to have free access of light and air to her house through the windows and the aperture. The City Civil Judge alter a careful consideration of the evidence and the inspection of the plaintiffs house came to the conclusion that the windows and the aperture had been in existence for more than 20 years and that the plaintiff had acquired a right to have free access of light and air through them.

4. Mr. Justice Phillips differed from the finding of the City Civil Judge mainly on two grounds:

1. That the roof over the court-yard and the sunshades came into existence within 20 years and the evidence as to its existence in 1887 was disbelieved and that it is difficult to credit the evidence with regard to the windows.

2. The City Civil Judge did not say anything about the character or the trustworthiness of the plaintiffs witnesses and consequently there was nothing to guide him in estimating their evidence.

5. On the plaintiffs side seven witnesses were examined. P.W. 1 is shipping agent and he deposes that the plaintiffs house was rebuilt in 1887 by Nagarathna Mudali and that the windows existed then. He further deposes that the Mangalore title covering over the court-yard was put up about 30 years ago.

6. Plaintiffs witness No. 2 who attested the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff (Ex. A) is the brother of Pappathi Ammal, the vendor to the plaintiff. He deposes that Pappathi Ammal bought the house from Nagarathna Mudali in 1895 under Ex. B, that the windows were in existence at the time of the purchase and the aperture over, the court-yard was also in existence and that Pappathi Ammal did not make any alteration to the house.

7. Plaintiffs witness No. 3 is the son of Pappathi Ammal and he joined in the sale-deed, Ex. A, in favour of the plaintiff. He says that the house was purchased 27 years ago and that, at the time of the purchase, the windows and the aperture over the court-yard were in existence.

8. Plaintiffs witness No. 4 lives in 134, Govindappa Naick Street, and he speaks to the existence of the windows and the aperture for over 20 years.

9. Plaintiffs witness No. 5 is a landlord and he has seen the house for over 20 or 25 years and says that the windows have always been there.

10. Plaintiffs witness No. 6 is Mr. Barker who was examined to prove the plan of the house says that the covering over the court-yard is 25 or 30 years old, and that the openings, meaning the windows, are 25 to 30 years old.

11. Plaintiffs witness No. 7 is an auditor in the Postal Audit Office on a pay of Rs. 120. He says that for the last 25 years he has been living in No. 2, Srinivasa Aiyar Street, and that he knows No. 135, Govindappa Naick Street. He is about 41 years of age and says that from his 15th year he has been seeing the windows and the sun-shade over them.

12. All these are respectable witnesses and they are not shown to be interested in any way in the plaintiff. Mr. Barkers