S RAMALINGAM PILLAI Vs. DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who lost in both the Courts below is the appellant in this second appeal. He brought O. S. No. 81976 of the District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with his construction of the walls A.B. and A. C. as shown in the plaint plan and from in any way interfering with his putting up a window in the wall A. C. and for costs. The trial Court decreed the suit in respect of construction of the walls A B. and A C. as shown in the plaint plan, but dismissed the suit in other respects. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the appellant preferred A.S. No. 33 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli The appeal was dismissed.

(2.) The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in Sayyed Azuf v. Ameerubibi2, had ruled that the invasion of privacy by opening a window is not a wrong for which an action will lie. The facts in that case are, the plaintiff sued for an injunction against the defendant alleging that the defendant had opened a window in his house whereby the privacy in the plaintiffs house which adjoined it had been invaded. The above decision has stood the test of time. Secondly, it is as old as 1895. But then, the ratio applies with greater force to the facts of the instant case taking into consideration the extraordinary social changes now found in Hindu society as also in other societies. Besides as it is a judgment of a Division Bench I am certainly bound by that. Then, the only course open to me is to accept the appeal.