LADURAM Vs. SHEODEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for injunction brought against four defendants by one Chhotmal on 9. 1. 48. The houses of the defendants are adjacent to the house of the plaintiff. It was alleged that six widows were constructed by them in their houses on 10. 4. 41 which overlooked the premises of the plaintiff thereby interfering with his privacy. With regard to one of these windows situated on the ground floor in the house of Karnidan defendant No. 1, it was further alleged than the defendant No. 1 used to trespass into his house through it. With regard to the remaining windows it was alleged that the defendants used to throw diary water through them in the house of the plaintiff. It was averred that plaintiff was precluded from making any construction to screen these windows on account of an order of the Municipal Board. It was accordingly prayed that a mandatory injunction may be issued requiring the defendants to close these widows and a permanent injunction may be issued to them restraining them from opening new widows overlooking the house of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the defendants intearalia on the ground that the plaint did not disclose wether there was any customary easement right of privacy prevailing in the locality where the houses of the parties were situated. An application for amendment of the plaint thereupon was filed by the plaintiff on 27. 11. 50. It was asserted in the application that a custom of privacy was impliedly pleaded in the plaint but as it had not been pleaded specifically it was prayed that the following amendments may be allowed; - (1) In para 1 of the plaint and the words "the custom of Parda is observed in the family of the plaintiff. " (2) In para 6 of plaint add the words "because a decision was given about it on (date not given) on Account of the defendant's opening the above windows the plaintiff and members of his family cannot use the necessary apartments like the latrine because opposite the latrine the defendants have opened a window. Further the privacy of the plaintiff and members of his family has been interfered with on account of the windows which interfered with the observance of Parda. Thus there is substantial and material interference with the right of privacy of the plaintiff which is actionable. The plaintiff is thus entitled to get the windows closed.

(2.) THE above amendment was disallowed by the trial court. A preliminary issue was framed as to whether the plaint disclosed any cause of action and arguments were heard. During the course of arguments the case of the plaintiff relating to the defendants committing trespass through the window on the ground floor and throwing dirty water through other windows was given up. THE learned Munsif held that as no customary easement right of privacy had been pleaded the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. He accordingly dismissed the suit.