CHHEDI RAM Vs. GOKUL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for the closing of three windows opened by the defendant in his second storey on the ground that they infringed the plaintiffs right of privacy as regards their room in the second storey. The houses of the parties are situate opposite to each other and are separated by a lane which is described as a private lane in the plaint. In the Courts below the defendant did not take up the position that there was any public lane intervening between the houses or that the existence of such a lane destroyed the right of privacy. Both the Courts below have decreed the claim.

(2.) As pointed out by Sir John Edge in the leading case of Gokul Prasad V/s. Radho [1888] 10 All. 358.: every case must depend on its own facts and there are the primary questions which arise in all such cases: (1) Does the privacy in fact and substantially exist and has it been and is it in fact enjoyed? and (2) was the privacy substantially or materially interfered With by acts of the defendant done without the consent or acquiescence of the person seeking relief against those acts?

(3.) The defendant had urged that inasmuch as there were other windows in his house on the same storey no privacy existed, and also pleaded that the plaintiffs apartment was not regularly occupied by his females as they were only occasional visitors thereto. It is also suggested that they did not observe strict purdah. The lower appellate Court has, however, recorded a finding that the other windows do not substantially expose the privacy of the plaintiffs room, that the apartment in question is occupied by the females of the plaintiffs house when they come to reside at this place and that they observe purdah. These findings in our opinion are findings of fact and must be accepted. They amount to a clear finding in favour of the respondents that the right of privacy did in fact exist and was really enjoyed by the plaintiffs.