KONJETI SUBBA RAO Vs. YELLESWARAPU VENKATESWARLU & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff in an action for a permanent in-junction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 from interfering with his rights to open windows in his wall.

(2.) The fact are that the plaintiff and the defendants own properties which lie contiguous to each other; and when the plaintiff attempted to open windows in his wall, the defendants obstructed him from doing so. The objection of the defendants is based on a plea that their right of privacy would be infringed by the opening of the windows in the wall of the plaintiff. This dispute has given rise to the suit, wherein an injunction is sought to restrain the defendants from interfering with the exercise by the plaintiff of his right to open windows in the wall belonging to him.

(3.) The findings of the court of first instance are that the site whereon the wall stands, belongs to the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title and that the oral agreement pleaded by the defendants with the plaintiff's mother and predecessor-in-title where by the plaintiff was precluded from putting up the windows, was not made out. The right of privacy pleaded by the defendants was not upheld and the injunction asked for by the plaintiff had been granted. The learned Subordinate Judge, to whom an appeal had been preferred by the defendants, had reversed the decree of the trial court, taking a different view as to the existence of the right of privacy pleaded by the defendants. It had been noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge that no argument was advanced before him in respect of the factual findings arrived at by the trial Court. The only point for consideration, therefore, was whether the obstruction caused by the defendants to the plaintiff's attempt to open windows in his wall was well founded. It is not easy to follow the basis of the judgment of the learned Subordinate to Judge, which is not intelligible in several respects. In the concluding paragraphs, he observed that a person who owns a land or a house is entitled to the right of privacy and a neighbour should use his own property without affecting such right. At another place, he observed that the plaintiff felt no necessity for a period of fifteen years to open windows in tho western wall of his house, but all of a sudden he decided to open three wind, owns and ventilators in the said wall irrespective of the right of his neighbours. These observations of the learned Subordinate Judge bear out that in his opinion, the opening of windows by the plaintiff leads to the infringement of the right of privacy of the defendants and the plaintiff's action for injunction should, therefore, be dismissed.