JUDGMENT

Kanhaiya Lal, J. - The question for consideration in this case is, whether the defendant was entitled to construct his wall in such a manner as to block a window in the verandah of the plaintiff which opened towards the land of the defendant. The window had been in existence for more than twenty years. The Court of first instance refused to direct the demolition of the wall by which the window was blocked, holding that the construction had not had the effect of materially interfering with the access of light and air to the verandah of the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court, however, thought that as the effect of the construction of the wall was to block the window entirely, the plaintiff was entitled to have the obstruction removed in order that the access of light and air through the window might remain unaffected. In doing so, it disregarded the conditions of the locality, inasmuch as the verandah of the plaintiff had sufficient access of light and air from the other sides and the blocking up of the window had made no difference /whatsoever to the light and air which was obtainable to the verandah of the plaintiff otherwise.

2. Section 28 of the Indian Easements Act lays