law: Indian Easements Act, 1882
  15. Acquisition by prescription
  Where the access and use of light or air and for any building
  
  have been peaceably enjoyed therewith, as an easement, without interruption,
  
  and for twenty years,
  and where support from one person's land or things affixed
  
  thereto, has been peaceably received by another person's land subjected to
  
  artificial pressure, or by things affixed thereto, as an easement, without
  
  interruption, and for twenty years,
  and where a right of way or any other easement has been
  
  peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto, as an
  
  easement and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years,
  the right to such access and use of light or air, support, or
  
  other easement, shall be absolute.
  Each of the said periods of twenty years shall be taken to be a
  
  period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit wherein
  
  the claim to which such period relates is contexted.
  Explanation I:  Nothing is an enjoyment within the
  
  meaning of this section when it has been had in pursuance of an agreement with
  
  the owner or occupier of the property over which the right is claimed, and it
  
  is apparent from the agreement that such right has not been granted as an
  
  easement, or, if granted as an easement, that it has been granted for a limited
  
  period, or subject to a condition on the fulfillment of which it is to cease.
  Explanation II:  Nothing is an interruption within the
  
  meaning of this section unless where there is an actual cessation of the
  
  enjoyment by reason of an obstruction by the act of some other than the
  
  claimant, and unless such obstruction is submitted to or acquiesced in for one
  
  year after the claimant has notice thereof, and of the person making or
  
  authorizing the same to be made.
  Explanation III : Suspensions of enjoyment in pursuance
  
  of a contract between the dominant and servant owners is not an interruption within
  
  the meaning of this section.
  Explanation IV:  In the case of an easement to pollute
  
  water the said period of twenty years begins when the pollution first
  
  prejudices perceptibly the servant heritage.
  When the property over which a right is claimed under this
  
  section belongs to government, this section shall be read as if, for the words
  
  "twenty years" the words "thirty years" were substituted.
  Illustrations
  (a) A suit is brought in 1883 for obstructing a right of way.
  
  The defendant admits the obstruction, but denies the right of way. The
  
  plaintiff proves that the right was peaceable and openly enjoyed by him,
  
  claiming title thereto, as an easement, and as of right, without interruption,
  
  from lst January, 1862 to lst January, 1882. The plaintiff is entitled to
  
  judgment.
  (b) In a like suit the plaintiff shows that the right was
  
  peaceable and openly enjoyed by him for twenty years, the defendant proves that
  
  for a year of that time the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the servant
  
  heritage as lessee thereof and enjoyed the right as such lessee. The suit shall
  
  be dismissed, for the right of way has not been enjoyed "as an
  
  easement" for twenty years.
  (c) In a like suit the plaintiff shows that the right was
  
  peaceably and openly enjoyed by him for twenty years. The defendant proves that
  
  the plaintiff on one occasion during the twenty years had admitted that the
  
  user was not of right and asked his leave to enjoy the right. The suit shall be
  
  dismissed, for the right of way has not been enjoyed "as of right"
  
  for twenty years.
  Comment: As far as the question of opening of new
  
  windows is concerned, it is open to the defendants to use their property in any
  
  manner permitted by law; and hence they cannot be restrained from opening new
  
  windows, as no customary right of privacy appears to have been pleaded or
  
  proved. This position is not disputed by the plaintiffs. It is, however,
  
  equally clear that, if the defendants open any new windows, the plaintiffs are
  
  fully entitled to block the same by raising the height of their walls and the
  
  defendants are not entitled to break or damage the said walls or any portion
  
  thereof so as to remove the obstruction to their new windows. Smt. Anguri v.
  
  Jiwan Dass AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 2024