That would be an easement right to light. Technically, a person deprived of his easement right to enjoy property has a right to approach through a suit for injunction. Practically, how much a Court will bother about a suit for easement? Your guess is as good as mine [shrug].
Bryant v. Lefever, (1879) 4 CPD 172: "It is to have all natural incidents and advantages, as nature would produce them; there is a right to all the light and heat that would come, to all the rain that would fall, to all the wind that would blow; a right that the rain, which would pass over the land, should not be stopped and made to fall on it; a right that the heat from the sun should not be stopped and reflected on it; a right that the wind should not be checked, but should be able to escape freely; and if it were possible that these rights were interfered with by one having no right, no doubt an action would lie. But these natural rights are subject to the right of adjoining owners, who for the benefit of the community, have and must have rights in relation to the use and enjoyment of their property that qualify and interfere with those of their neighbours, rights to use their property in various ways in which property is lawfully and commonly used."
Originally posted by : Rama chary Rachakonda |
|
Children with ADHD show fewer symptoms when they have access to nature. Exposure to trees and nature aids concentration by reducing mental fatigue. |
|
Huh??