This case involves a dispute over an easementary right to light and air. The plaintiff seeks a declaration of this right and an injunction to prevent the defendant from obstructing it. The judgment requires framing issues, analyzing evidence, and applying relevant legal provisions, primarily from the Indian Easements Act, 1882.

I. Issues for Determination:

1. Whether the plaintiff has acquired an easementary right to light and air through the windows on the right side of his house over the defendant's Plot No. 2 by prescription under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.
2. Whether the plaintiff's enjoyment of light and air was based on a mere oral permission (license) granted by the defendant's predecessor-in-title, which was revocable and subsequently revoked by the defendant.
3. Whether the proposed construction by the defendant on Plot No. 2 would unlawfully obstruct the plaintiff's right to light and air, causing substantial injury.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of his easementary right and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the same.
5. Whether the suit has been properly valued and the court fee paid is sufficient.

II. Judgment:

A. Brief Facts:

The plaintiff, owner of Plot No. 1, constructed a house with two windows on its right side, facing the adjacent Plot No. 2, owned by the defendant. These windows are the primary source of light and air for the rear portion of the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff claims to have enjoyed this right peaceably, openly, and without interruption for over 23 years, within the knowledge of the defendant and his predecessor-in-title (PIT). The defendant's Plot No. 2 remained vacant for over 25 years. The defendant, who purchased Plot No. 2 after the plaintiff's house was built, has now commenced construction, intending to erect a wall that would obstruct the plaintiff's windows. The plaintiff seeks a declaration of his easementary right and a permanent injunction. The defendant denies the existence of any easementary right, asserting that the plaintiff had only oral permission (a license) from his PIT, which was revocable and has since been withdrawn. He also challenges the suit's valuation and court fee.

B. Analysis of Evidence and Findings:

Issue 1: Easement by Prescription (Section 15, Indian Easements Act, 1882)

• Plaintiff's Evidence: The plaintiff (PW-1) testified that his house was constructed 23 years ago, and the completion certificate is 22 years old. A neighbour (PW-2) corroborated that the windows have existed for over 20 years. The Municipal Corporation's permission for windows was 'subject to easementary rights of neighbours', which, while not granting an easement, acknowledges the possibility of such rights. The engineer (PW-3) confirmed that closing the windows would lead to 'complete darkness', indicating substantial injury if the right is obstructed.
• Defendant's Evidence: The defendant (DW-1) and his PIT (DW-2) claimed the plaintiff admitted he would remove the windows when construction started. However, in cross-examination, the PIT admitted he was not present when the windows were initially opened. He only objected later, and the plaintiff orally agreed to remove them 'as and when required'.
• Finding: Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act requires enjoyment of light and air 'peaceably and openly as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, for twenty years'. The plaintiff's evidence strongly suggests enjoyment for over 20 years. The crucial aspect is 'as of right' versus 'by permission'. The PIT's admission that he was not present when the windows were opened weakens the defendant's claim of initial permission. An oral agreement to remove, made after the windows were opened and potentially after the 20-year period had begun or even matured, may not negate an already accruing or acquired prescriptive right, especially given the plaintiff's admitted illiteracy and lack of legal knowledge. The burden is on the defendant to prove that the enjoyment was by license. The evidence of the PIT regarding a subsequent oral agreement to remove, without any written record, is insufficient to conclusively establish that the enjoyment was not 'as of right' from its inception or that the prescriptive period was effectively interrupted before completion.

Issue 2: Oral Permission (License)

• Finding: Given the PIT's admission of not being present when the windows were opened, the claim of an initial oral permission is not convincingly established. The subsequent oral 'agreement to remove' is ambiguous and, without written documentation, cannot definitively transform an enjoyment that might have been 'as of right' into a mere license, particularly if the prescriptive period was already running or had completed. A license, by definition (Section 52, Easements Act), grants a right to do something on immovable property that would otherwise be unlawful, and it is generally revocable (Section 60). However, if the enjoyment was 'as of right' for the statutory period, it matures into an easement, which is an irrevocable right.

Issue 3: Unlawful Obstruction and Substantial Injury

• Finding: The engineer's testimony (PW-3) confirms that closing the windows would cause 'complete darkness'. This constitutes 'substantial injury' as contemplated by Section 33 of the Easements Act, making the disturbance actionable if an easement is established.

Issue 5: Valuation and Court Fee

• Finding: The plaintiff has valued the suit for declaration at Rs. 1,000/- and for injunction at Rs. 400/-, paying the requisite court fees. The defendant has challenged this. In the absence of specific evidence from the defendant demonstrating that the valuation is arbitrary or grossly undervalued, and considering the nature of the suit for declaration and injunction, the plaintiff's valuation appears reasonable and the court fee paid sufficient.

C. Conclusion on Issues 1, 2, 3, and 4:

Based on the marshalling and appreciation of evidence, the plaintiff has successfully demonstrated open, peaceful, and uninterrupted enjoyment of light and air through his windows for a period exceeding 20 years. The defendant's claim of a mere license is not sufficiently substantiated, especially considering the PIT's admission of not being present at the time of the windows' construction. The subsequent oral agreement to remove, without written proof, is not strong enough to defeat a prescriptive right that has either accrued or was in the process of accruing 'as of right'. The proposed construction would cause substantial injury to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has acquired an easementary right by prescription, and the defendant's actions constitute an unlawful obstruction.

D. Order:

In light of the above findings, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. It is hereby declared that the plaintiff has acquired an easementary right to light and air through the two windows on the right side of his house over the defendant's Plot No. 2. The defendant is permanently restrained by way of injunction from carrying out any construction or erecting any wall on his Plot No. 2 that would obstruct the light and air to the plaintiff's said windows. The defendant shall also bear the costs of the suit.