ORDER 1. This second appeal has been filed assailing the concurrent findings of both he courts below where the suit of plaintiff/appellant filed for declaration of right to air and light from the adjoining plot belonging to the defendants and with corresponding decree of permanent injunction against the defendants in that regard. The corresponding decree of permanent injunction was sought for adjuncting the defendant from interfering with this right. 2. No written statement was filed by the defendants. 3. After adducing evidence brought by plaintiff the suit was dismissed. The trial Court observed that apart from the statement of the plaintiff and his witnesses, no documentary proof or otherwise was adduced to substantiate his claim in the plaint. Moreso, the trial Court found that in regard to the plot of the defendant over which right to way, light and passage was being claimed by the plaintiff, civil suit 177-A/74 had been filed by Sita Ram (father of defendant herein) against the plaintiff herein and brothers and sisters of the plaintiff herein. This suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff Sita Ram ( defendant herein) declaring him to be the owner of the said plot and to be in possession and also preventing the defendant therein (the plaintiff herein ) from interfering in the possession of the said plot of the plaintiff (defendant herein). Pertinently the decree passed in favor of the defendant herein was affirmed till the High Court and thus attained finality and binding effect between the parties. 4. The trial Court took note of the fact that the material fact of earlier suit of declaration of permanent injunction in regard to the same suit property having been decided which having attained finality and binding effect, was suppressed by the plaintiff herein. The trial Court found that neither the plaintiff was able to prove his case nor he was entitled to any relief in view of being guilty of suppression of material fact. The trial Court found that neither the plaintiff was able to prove his case nor he was entitled to any relief in view of being guilty of suppression of material fact. The trial Court further observed that once a decree has been passed between the same parties in regard to the same property declaring the defendant herein to be the owner and in possession and simultaneously the plaintiff herein from interfering with the ownership and possession of the defendant herein, the court now cannot pass a decree as sought for by the plaintiff herein especially when the earlier judgment and decree passed in favor of the defendant herein have attained finality and binding effect. 5. The first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by dismissing the appeal. The first appellate Court went ahead to hold that easementary rights of free passage, light and air available under section 15 of the Indian Easements Act is not available in view of the bar contained in section 17 (b) of the said Act as the plaintiff seeks such a right to an open space of ground which is barred. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant primarily contends that the right to light and air and of way if claimed by the plaintiff was in regard to his accommodation situated on the first floor and therefore, the bar contained in section 17 (b) of Easements Act is inapplicable since the said right is not regarding the ground. 7. The perusal of the pleadings in the plaint and the relief sought, reflect that the plaintiff has not only sought easementary rights over the plot of the defendant in regard to the first floor windows of the house of the plaintiff but also ground floor door of the plaintiff’s house. So far as right to air and light of the plaintiff from the windows situated on the first floor of his house is concerned, the same cannot be denied from being enjoyed. Thus to that limited extent, the bar contained in section 17 (b) of the Easements Act does not come in the way. On the other hand, the plaintiff was barred from claiming any relief in respect of light and air or passage from his ground floor door. 8. Thus to that limited extent, the bar contained in section 17 (b) of the Easements Act does not come in the way. On the other hand, the plaintiff was barred from claiming any relief in respect of light and air or passage from his ground floor door. 8. The plaintiff/appellant may be having some claim of easementary rights which have matured by way of prescription in his favor under section 15 of Easements Act as regards the ground floor door of his house qua the plot of the defendants but the fact remains that whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief in that regard or not, in the face of the undeniable fact that plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material fact before the trial Court for failing to disclose the judgment and decree passed against him in regard to the same plot on an earlier occasion. 9. This Court is of the firm opinion that howsoever strong case may be of a litigant the relief ought not to be given to him if he is found guilty of suppressio veri. The plaintiff/appellant has never come forward with the plea that he was ignorant of the passing of the earlier decree and judgment against him. Thus it is obvious that suppression was intentionally done to mislead the court to pass a decree in his favour. 10. Thus the plaintiff who is guilty of suppression of material fact is not entitled to the relief even if he is otherwise to some extent entitled to the same. 11. In view of the above, both the substantial questions of law framed on 26.4.2006 are answered against the plaintiff/appellant. The judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are upheld. 12. Consequently, the present second appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed sans cost.