JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - The suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was instituted by the temple Shri Dwarka Dhish Ji of Amritsar through its trustees against one Dewa Singh for a perpetual injunction to the effect that the defendant be directed to remove the obstruction against the ventilator C and the door D caused by the defendant building against the plaintiff's wall. In the plaint it was claimed that the door and the ventilator in question had existed for more than 20 years and that the plaintiff acquired an easement of light and air through both and of passage through the door D. The suit was resisted by the defendant on various grounds it being alleged: firstly, that the wall in which the door and the ventilator existed did not belong exclusively to the plaintiff; secondly, that the alleged right of easement did not exist; and thirdly, that the defendant had built against the door and the ventilator with the consent of some of the trustees of the temple. The trial Court held that the wall was the exclusive property of the plaintiff, that the ventilator C and the door D existed for more than 20 years, that the plaintiff had acquired an easement of light and air in respect of both C and D and also an easement of passage through the door D and that the defendant had failed to prove that he had built with the consent of any of the trustees of the temple. The Court, however, refused to grant the injunction prayed for on the ground that the rooms in which the door and the ventilator opened were occupied by servants, "who had not a very high standard of living." He accordingly, granted a decree for Rs. 400 as damages for infringement of his rights.

2. Both parties appealed to the District Judge who upheld the findings of facts of the trial Court on all points but granted the injunction prayed for in respect of the obstruction to the ventilator. He held that no cause had been made out for the issue of an injunction relating to infringement of light and air through the door D, but that for this infringement damages were the proper relief which he assessed at Rs. 300.

3. Second appeals have been preferred by both the parties to this Court and the case has been fully argued by Mr. Ralli for the defendant and Mr. Fakir Chand for the plaintiff.

4. As regards the ventilator Mr. Ralli contends that though it has been found that there has been a deprivation of light and air, there is no finding that it amounts to a nuisance and that consequently the mandatory injunction should not have been issued. In support of his contention, he relies on the well-known case of P.C.E. Paul v. William Robson A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 45. But in my opinion this contention is devoid of all force. A look at the plan, Ex. H.P. 1, shows that besides this ventilator the room has no other means of access of light and air except a door which opens into another kothri and that if the ventilator is closed the room will become dark. The deprivation of light and air, therefore, clearly amounts to a nuisance. The rule laid down by Lord Davey in the well-known case of Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores [1904] A.C. 179, which was adopted by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the above-cited case is thus expressed:

The...owner of the dominant tenement is entitled to the uninterrupted access through his ancient windows of a quantity of light, the measure of which is what is required for the ordinary purposes of inhabitancy or business of the tenement according to the ordinary notions of mankind.

5. Applying this test the obstructions caused to the ventilator in questions clearly amounts to a nuisance. Mr. Ralli has laid emphasis upon the fact that the room is used by servants, and this circumstance appears to have largely influenced the Subordinate Judge in refusing the injunction. Servants even in a country like India cannot be denied the right to receive free air and light through the ancient lights of rooms in which they live and a relief otherwise appropriate cannot