Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The contention of the defendant is that the wall is a common wall, that both the buildings have been in existence even from prior to 1900 that in a Will dated 17-7-1934 in respect of door No. 96 and some other properties, which was attested by the father of the plaintiff, the suit wall has been described as a common wall, that all the windows in the disputed wall had been closed even during the lifetime of the plaintiff's grandfather, that Arunachala Nadar remodelled the then existing building and that the claim of the plaintiff for easementary right of light and air is untenable and has been put forward merely to harass the defendant who has purchased the building despite the attempt of the plaintiff to purchase the same.

8. The ratio behind these decisions is that when one of the owners of a common wall opens windows in that common wall, he does so in exercise of his rights as a co-owner and, therefore, cannot acquire a right of easement in respect of the windows against the co-owner. A right which cannot be pre-vented from being exercised by physical interference during the period of enjoyment cannot be acquired as an easement. Before time can commence to run under the Easements Act, there must be an invasion of some legal right. Acts which are neither preventable nor actionable cannot be relied upon to found an easement. In the case of a common wall, each co-owner is entitled to a reasonable user of the wall owned in common and so long as each co-owner uses it reasonably without interfering with the enjoyment of that wall by the other co-owner or without doing anything which would weaken, damage, increase or diminish the wall enjoyed in common, he is entitled to do what he likes and the other co-owners will have no cause for complaint unless the acts alleged amount to his ouster or to the destruction of the party wall. The opening of the apertures in the common wall by the plaintiff should, therefore, be treated as incidental to the enjoyment of the common property and it does not amount to trespass upon the right of the other co-owner which would entitle him to prevent such trespass by physical obstruction or by an action in a court of law When there is no scope for such an action, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired a right of easement by prescription to ancient light and air through those apertures.

9. In Nageswara Rao v. Ramachandra Rao, , a Bench of the Andhra High Court has held that the co-owner of a joint wall could not acquire an easement in respect of light and air through the windows in the joint wall whatever may be the period of his enjoyment prior to the date of the suit, as the normal method of enjoyment of joint wall also includes the enjoyment by opening windows or ventilators which could not give rise to any trespass so as to give a cause of action for an obstruction or a suit in a Civil Court to prevent it at the instance of the other owner. I follow this view of the Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim an easementary right by prescription to ancient light and air through the seven windows in the common wall. Hence the judgments and decrees of the courts below are confirmed and this second appeal is dismissed with costs.