ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard the counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made on 21.4.1994 in C.R.No. 3801/93. In a suit of perpetual injunction restraining the mother of the appellants from constructing a window in the joint wall ABFAEDC between F & G, the trial Court granted the decree on the finding that 1½ ft. thick well was a joint wall and, therefore, the appellants mother had no right to open a window in the joint wall. The decree had become final. Subsequently, the admitted facts are that 30 area with the aforesaid zig-zag wall was sold to the respondent-decree holders and the appellants have constructed straight wall. The respondent in the cross-examination had admitted that the wall AB is g" in width. The spot wall FG is also g" in width. The house was constructed by Surinder Kumar in January 1991. Wall AB has also been constructed afresh. It was also admitted that the wall A to B has been constructed by Surinder Kumar in his own land. In view of these admissions, it is now clear that the wall B to A is 9" thick constructed by the appellants. The only dispute is whether the wall between G