TIKA RAM JOSHI Vs. RAM LAL SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiffs claimed an injunction to compel the defendant to close up certain apertures which he had opened in a side wall of his premises overlooking a house owned and occupied by them and to restrain him from opening any such apertures in the future. The learned Munsif who tried the case decreed the claim, but on appeal the decree was modified. The learned District Judge refused to grant any injunction but ordered that certain windows should be rendered in such a condition as to make it impossible for anyone in the defendant's premises to see through them into the plaintiffs premises. Against this decision the defendant has appealed to this Court contending that the opening of the apertures in question does not amount to an infringement of the plaintiffs rights. The plaintiffs being also dissatisfied with this decision have filed a cross-objection claiming that the decree of the learned Munsif should be restored.

(2.) The facts of the case are simple and are not in dispute. The respondents, the plaintiffs in the suit, are the owners in possession of a dwelling house bearing the Municipal number 12 in Lala Bazar in the town of Almora. This house has been occupied by the family of the plaintiffs for many years and the ladies of the household have been in the past and are at present pardanishin ladies. Shortly before action was brought, the defendant-appellant purchased a house - Municipal No. 10 - which is situate near the respondents dwelling house and proceeded to demolish part of it and rebuild the same. During this reconstruction the appellant without the respondent's consent opened windows and a doorway which it is alleged, overlooked the respondents dwelling house and the latter contended that the opening of such apertures amounted to an infringement of or interference with their right of privacy. It has been found that the doorway referred to can in no way be objectionable and the contest in the lower appellate Court was confined solely to the windows. That Court has found that a view of a part of the respondents premises known as the "pakholia" can be obtained from three of these windows, whilst no objection can be taken to the fourth window. It must be conceded that the findings are binding on this Court in second appeal, but it has been strenuously argued that in spite of such findings the lower appellate1 Court was wrong in law in granting to the respondents any relief. The respondents, on the other hand, have argued that having regard to these findings the lower appellate Court should have ordered the three windows in question to be bricked or walled up and granted an injunction restraining the appellant from making any such aperture in the future.

(3.) The "pakholia" which is overlooked by these three windows is used by the ladies of the respondents household for the performance of their household duties and personal ablutions. It is not a yard or courtyard in the centre of the respondents house but is situated at the back of it. The side walls of this yard are the walls of the adjoining houses and it is separated from the fields at the rear of the premises by a wall which is described as shoulder or neck high. Having regard to the use made of this "pakholia" by the ladies of the household, the presence of these windows is obviously objectionable, but the appellant is entitled to make such windows unless the making of them infringes or interferes with the respondents legal rights. On the other hand, if the respondents have a right of privacy, such a right must be protected by appropriate and suitable relief.