National India Textiles, Karur by its partner Nataraja Iyer, the appellant herein, is the defendant. One K.N. Natesan, the respondent herein, is the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit, O.S. No. 378 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Karur for the reliefs of declaration and injunction.

3. The claim of the plaintiff is rested on the following pleas; He is the owner of the house bearing door No. 29, corresponding to new door No. 60, in Hanumantharayan Koil Street, Karur Town. The said house is a residential house, The defendant is the owner of the adjoining building, which lies on the north of his building. The northern wall of the plaintiffs building, which is shown as AB in the plaint plan is the exclusive wall of the plaintiff. There are six windows in the said wall, shown as W1, W2, W3, W4, W5 and W6. These windows are giving light and air to the plaintiffs living portion and they are in existence for well over sixty years. The plaintiff and his predecessorse in title had prescribed right to the accustomed free flow of light and air through the said windows to the various apartments in the house. All along he was enjoying the above right to light and air through the windows without any occasion of interruption whatever. The defendant had no right to interrupt the exercise of the above right in the windows. While so, the defendant recently had been making structural alterations in his building. He therefore apprehends that the proposed alteration is likely to completely block the windows. While so, the defendant recently had been making structural alterations in his building. He therefore apprehends that the proposed alteration is likely to completely block the windows or close the provision of light and air permanently. The defendant is going on with the construction and unless the defendant is injuncted, he will be put to irreparable loss, besides deprivation of his lawful right to light and air. Hence the suit praying for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. The defendant resisted the suit by briefly contending as follows: To say that the windows had been in existence for about a period of sixty years is shorn of realities of the situation. The fact is that the plaintiff put the windows only after his purchase. The structural alteration, he had been making within his limits, is not likely to cause any diminution of light and air to the plaintiffs building, in as much as he had left a gap of two feet in between the two buildings. The plaintiff is not entitled to any blanket ban restraining the defendant from constructing within his limits. In such circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the pleadings of the parties necessary and requisite issues had been framed and the parties went on trial on those issues. During the course of trial, a commissioner had been appointed and his reports and plans had been marked. On consideration of the materials placed recording the findings on all the issues, in favour of the plaintiff, learned District Munsif decreed the suit as prayed for with costs.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant filed A.S. No. 20 of 1980 on the file of Sub Court, Karur challenging the verdict of the trial court. Learned Subordinate Judge, on consideration of the materials available on record and after hearing the arguments of respective learned counsel, concurring with the findings of the trial court, dismissed the appeal with costs, by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.

7. On going through the decree of the trial court, he found certain mistakes in the drafting of a clause in the decree relating to injunction. He therefore ordered correction of the mistake relating to that clause by modifying the said clause to the following effect:

“that the defendant, his men, servants, agent or any one on his behalf are hereby restrained by means of permanent injunction from putting up any construction or structure in the first floor in any manner whic