KESHAB SAHU Vs. DASARATHA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question, -- whether the plaintiff has an easement right of privacy in respect of his house, against a two-storeyed building of the adjoining owners (defendants), who recently constructed the second storey, with four windows and also a balcony, all overlooking the backyard of the petitioner's house, -- is the only point involved, in this second appeal, filed by the plaintiff, from a confirming decision of the learned District Judge of Bolangir whereby he affirmed a decision of the learned Munsif, Sonepur and dismissed the plaintiff's suit inter alia for mandatory injunction, for demolishing the balcony and closing the windows of the defendants' building, declaration of title, possession as prayed for in the plaint.

(2.) The parties are relations, belonging to the same family; under a certain partition, the plaintiff and the defendants were allotted their respective shares and they came to be and remained in possession thereof accordingly. The plaintiffs house including the backyard is to the south of the defendants', house; the defendants constructed a building making an encrochment over the land of the plaintiff as described in Schedule A to the plaint; the defendants also constructed a double storeyed building over the said plot with four windows on the upstair wall overlooking the bari (backyard) of the plaintiff; the plaintiff has got his residential house towards the north of the Bari; the defendants are also said to have wrongfully constructed a balcony staircase projecting towards the house of the plaintiff on the north in a manner which is alleged to have invaded the privacy of the plaintiff. The Bari of the plaintiff is used for latrine and urinal purpose of the females, by reason of which the alleged easement right of privacy is said to have been invaded by opening of windows on the wall of the building and the overlooking balcony; the defendants had started construction of the building in question in May 1957 notwithstanding the protest made by the plaintiff, and the upstair windows and the balcony staircase were constructed in June 1957; the plaintiff had made a complaint before the local Punchayat on June 6, 1957; but having obtained no relief, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for reliefs as aforesaid. The defence taken is to the effect that no privacy of the plaintiff as alleged has been infringed at all.

(3.) Both the Courts found that the plaintiff had no right of privacy and accordingly dismissed the suit. Hence this Second Appeal.