JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur in a regular civil appeal No. 22/1998, upholding the judgment and decree dated 03.10.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bharatpur, in which the suit for permanent injunction based on easementary rights filed by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') was decreed. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') Narayandas and his two sons on the ground of easement by prescription in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Bharatpur. In the course of trial, Narayandas died and his wife and daughters were also brought on record as legal heirs. According to the plaint, the plaintiff had purchased a residential house situated at Seth Ka Madd from one Sardar Dilip Singh on 18.04.1960 through a registered sale-deed. At the time of the purchase, the house was two storey, one being the ground floor and the other first floor. In the room on the first floor, as per the sale-deed, there existed two windows with iron bars (Jangla) ad measuring 2' X 2.6' opening to the western side of the house in issue. It was the plaintiff's case that thereafter sometime in the year 1965, construction on the second floor was also raised and in the room constructed, the plaintiff opened two windows ad measuring 4' X 5' with iron bars (Jangla). It was the plaintiff's case that he has been enjoying the air and light from the windows on the western side of the house both on the first and second floors openly, peacefully and continuously without any interruption for the last over 20 years and therefore had come to acquire easementary rights to receive light and air through the aforesaid windows. It was submitted that there was no other source of adequate light and air in the rooms in issue. It was submitted that there was no other source of adequate light and air in the rooms in issue. It was submitted that on the western side of the plaintiff's house existed a shop of the defendants confined to the ground floor, but on 30.07.1994, the defendants had demolished their shop and on or about 01.08.1994 openly declared that they were in the process of building a house on the site of the demolished shop and would close the windows of the plaintiff's house on the western side both on the first and second floors. It was submitted by the plaintiff that in the event the windows on the western side of the house both on the first and second floors were to be closed, she would be denied access to air and light enjoyed for over about 20 years and the consequences would entail the said rooms becoming practically uninhabitable. On the notice of the plaint being served on the defendants, written statement of denial was filed. It was stated that the windows on the western wall of the plaintiff's house both on the first and second floors were not 20 years old consequent to which no easementary rights by prescription was available. It was also stated that the plaintiff had access to air and light to the rooms in issue from the eastern side as there existed doors and a window. It was stated that there was a pre-existing charpetwa wall constructed by the defendants alongside the plaintiff's western wall, had fallen because of heavy rain and partially demolished by the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants stated that no easementary rights were available to the plaintiff and the suit for permanent injunction be dismissed. 3. It was stated that there was a pre-existing charpetwa wall constructed by the defendants alongside the plaintiff's western wall, had fallen because of heavy rain and partially demolished by the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants stated that no easementary rights were available to the plaintiff and the suit for permanent injunction be dismissed. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed four issues which are as under : " 1 vk;k okni= ds iSjk la[;k 2 esa of.kZr edku oknhuh ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dk gS\ 2 vk;k oknhuh vius edku ds nwljh o rhljh eafty esa if'peh nhokj ls 20 lky ls vf/kd le; ls taxyk ds }kjk gok jks'kuh dk mi;ksx djrh pyh vk jgh gS\ 3 vk;k izfroknhx.k us fnukad 01-08-1990 dks oknhuh ds if'peh nhokj ds pisVoka fuekZ.k djus dh /kedh nh vkSj mDr taxys dks can gks tkus ls mls Hk;adj vlqfo/kk o viw.kZuh; {kfr dkfjr gksxh rFkk lq[kkf/kdkj lekIr gks tk;sxk\ 4 vk;k izfroknhx.k fo'ks"k gtkZ ds :i esa nks gtkj :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ " 4. The plaintiff relied upon four witness including PW-4, Pramod Kumar Sharma, a commissioner appointed by the court. The defendant, in defence, brought two witnesses DW-1 and DW- 2 in support. On consideration of the matter, the learned trial court decided each of the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and consequently proceeded to decree the suit for permanent injunction finding that the plaintiff had been, from the evidence on record, able to prove easement by prescription under Section 15 of the Easement Act, 1882. An appeal under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 03.10.1997 passed by the trial court came to be dismissed by the first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 08.04.2011. Hence, this second appeal. 5. Counsel for the defendants has emphatically submitted that the findings of the courts below are absolutely perverse. It was submitted that the courts below have overlooked the relevant and admissible evidence and invoked irrelevant and inadmissible evidence. Counsel submitted that there was no evidence on record to establish that the plaintiff had access to air and light from the windows on the western side of his house both on the first and second floors for 20 years or more. Counsel submitted that there was no evidence on record to establish that the plaintiff had access to air and light from the windows on the western side of his house both on the first and second floors for 20 years or more. It has been submitted that the courts below also committed gross illegality in overlooking the site plan attached to the sale-deed dated 18.04.1960 (Ex-2) by which the plaintiff stated to have purchased the house in issue from one Sardar Dilip Singh which indicated that windows of the first floor on the western side of the house in issue were closed. She submitted that mere averments to the contrary in the body of the sale-deed ought to have been no avail to the plaintiff. It has also been submitted that the courts below also failed to came to a positive conclusion that in the event of closure of the windows on the western side of the plaintiff's house, both on the first and second floors, the diminution of air and light would be substantial enough to make the rooms uninhabitable. It has been submitted that the impugned judgments and decrees have the effect of interfering with the rights of the defendants to the full enjoyment of their property and as the orders of the courts below have entailed miscarriage justice, this Court should invoke its power under Section 100 CPC in this second appeal and quash and set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.10.1997 passed by the trial court and upheld by the first appellate court. 6. Heard the counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. 7. In my considered opinion, the finding of the right of easement by prescription is a pure finding of fact. The courts below have come to a conclusion from the evidence on record which inter alia included the sale-deed dated 18.04.1960 (Ex-2) whereby the plaintiff had purchased the house in issue from one Sardar Dilip Singh, indicating that at the time of the purchase of the house in 1960, the first floor room had a window opening on the western side of the house. Unshaken evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses further established the fact that the second floor room also with the windows on the western side was constructed sometime in 1965. Unshaken evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses further established the fact that the second floor room also with the windows on the western side was constructed sometime in 1965. The evidence of Pramod Kumar Sharma (PW-4), the commissioner appointed by the court, also testified to the factum of existing windows on the western side of the rooms of the first and second floors of the plaintiff's house. As against the plaintiff's evidence, the two defence witnesses were not categorical in their evidence and the learned trial court as also the first appellate court found that their evidence was insufficient to displace the preponderance of probability of easement by prescription in favour of the plaintiff. From evidence both oral and documentary on record, the courts below have thus found that the plaintiff was owner of the dominant heritage and having acquired easementary rights of air and light into the rooms on the first and second floors from the western side was entitled to a permanent injunction for its protection. The courts below found comfort in the sale-deed categorically stating that at the time of the purchase of the house, the room on the first floor had a functioning window facing the western side admeasuring 2'X 2.6'. The courts have rightly held that while construing the content of a sale-deed primacy had to be given to its content over the map annexed thereto. For this, the trial court has appropriately relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Wg. Cdr. (Retd.) R.N. Dawar v. Shri Ganga Saran Dhama, AIR 1993 Delhi 19 to hold that right to property must be expressed in the title-deed and when so expressed cannot be limited by a map. The courts below while dealing with issue No. 3 have also found that obstruction of light and air from the windows on the western side of both first and second floors of the plaintiff's house would entail substantial diminution of the plaintiff's right to air and light making the rooms quite uninhabitable and the doors on the eastern side were not the ordinary source of air and light. 8. In my considered view, the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below from the evidence on record cannot be held to be perverse. 8. In my considered view, the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below from the evidence on record cannot be held to be perverse. "Perversity" as a legal concept has been understood only as a finding /order made in conscious disregard of pleadings and evidence or conclusions of fact not supported by any evidence as also inconsistent therewith ( AIR 1958 SC 1012 D. Macropollo and Co (Private) Ltd. v. D. Macropollo and Co. (Private) Limited, Employees Union and others ). Even a potential different view on the evidence on record does not render a reasonable view otherwise taken a perverse view. The present case is on a much higher pedestal as another view treating the doors to the rooms a source of air and light, as agitated by the defendant, would have been a perverse view. Section 15 of the Easement Act provides that when a person has enjoyed peacefully and openly access and use of light and air for 20 years, it shall become absolute. On the findings of the courts below it is evident that the plaintiff's right to light and air from the windows on the first and second floors of her house had become absolute and was fully established in the courts below. 9. Counsel for the defendants has not been able to make out any of the substantial questions of law arising from the pleadings of the parties and the judgments and decree of the courts below. 10. Consequently, the second appeal is without force and the same is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******