KAILASH Vs. SUNIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the question of admission. Record perused. This is plaintiffs' second appeal against the reversing judgment and decree in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Dispute relates to window and ventilators facing the house of appellants. They claimed it be declared that respondent has no right to open window and ventilators facing their residential house and the windows and ventilators be directed to be closed by permanent injunction. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs and defendant are residing in Shujalpur. They are owners of adjoining houses.

(2.) ACCORDING to appellants, respondent reconstructed his house and on the first floor, respondent opened window and ventilators on the wall facing the house of the appellants. According to the appellants, this, infringed their right of privacy, therefore, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction as stated above was filed. The suit allegations were denied by the defendant and it was pleaded that window and ventilators already existed in the double storied house which was purchased by his father by the registered sale deed in the year 1953. He further alleged that house was renovated and window and ventilators were fixed for the purpose of air and light. With these pleadings, parties went to trial and adduced evidence. Learned trial Judge considering the evidence brought on record found that the appellants' right of privacy was infringed by opening of windows and ventilators and, therefore, decreed the suit. On an appeal by the defendant, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was reversed and the suit was dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree, hence this appeal under section 100 of the CPC.

(3.) THUS , we find no illegality or perversity with the finding recorded by Court below. In the opinion of this Court, this appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law, which is a; sine qua non for admitting a second appeal for hearing u/s 100 of the CPC. Since the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence, therefore, they are binding on this Court, [see Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001 (1) JLJ 401 = AIR 2001 SC 965]. While arriving at such findings, Court below did not consider any inadmissible evidence and as such, there is no scope for interference with such findings, [see Ishwar Das Jain v. Sohanlal, AIR 2000 SC 426]. Thus, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment and decree. Appeal stands dismissed summarily without any order as to costs.