JUDGMENT Rampini and Mitra, JJ. - This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs, dated the 16th of July 1900. The action is one of a somewhat unusual nature. The Plaintiff seeks to restrain the Defendant from maintaining a wall which he has erected in the course of the construction of a second storey to his house. The Plaintiff says that this wall interferes with a cornice of his house which has projected over the lower storey of the Defendant's house for many years and that he should have the wall, which the Defendant has erected so as to " absorb" or include his cornice, removed and broken down. 2. The Subordinate Judge has found as fact that the cornice of the Plaintiff's house has projected to the extent of 6 inches in width over the Defendant's lower storey for a considerable period, more than the period necessary for the establishment of an easement, provided such an easement as the Plaintiff claims can be acquired. But he has held that no such right can be gained by prescription, inasmuch as this cornice which projects over the Defendant's house is not necessary for the protection of the Plaintiff's property, but has been constructed on the Plaintiff's house merely for the purpose of ornamentation. He says in his judgment : "One fundamental principle of the right to an easement is that it confers some benefit on the person who claims the easement and does not serve merely a purpose of ornamentation." The Plaintiff now appeals against this order of the Subordinate Judge. 3. We have given this case our best consideration and on the whole, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the Plaintiff's appeal to him and we think that he has laid down the law as to easements perfectly correctly. We find in the Indian Easements Act (Act V of 1882), which, of course, is not in force in this province, but which we think may be referred to as an authority on the subject as to what an easement in India is, it is laid down that "an easement is a right which the owner or occupier of certain land possesses, as such, for the beneficial enjoyment of that land to do and continue to do something," and so on. Then, we find it laid down in Gale on Easements, 7th edition, page 6, that "an easement is a privilege without profit, which the owner of one neighbouring tenement hath of another, existing in respect of their several tenements by which the servant owner is obliged to suffer or not to do something on his own land, for advantage of the dominant owner." Thus, it appears from these authorities that there can be no prescriptive right to a projection which has been erected merely for the purpose of ornamentation. 4. We find this also laid down in the case of John George Bagram v. Khettranath Karformah (1869) 3. B.L.R. (O.C.) 18, 47, in which Chief Justice Peacock has pointed out that there is no prescriptive right to anything which is "a mere matter of delight and not a matter of necessity." In these circumstances we think that this case has been rightly decided. The Plaintiff's cornice, which no doubt projected over the Defendant's land for some time, is not a subject with regard to which an easement can be acquired by the Plaintiff. The Defendant has clearly a right to the enjoyment of his land usque ad coelum unless the Plaintiff can establish a prescriptive right to project his cornice over it. In our opinion he cannot successfully do so and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.