( 1 ). HAVING heard both sides, this appeal has to be admitted to dispose of the following questions of law: (1) Whether there is right of privacy in India? (2) Whether the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 158 of 1986 (who are the respondents herein) have pleaded customary right of privacy with reference to illustration (b) of Section 18 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (Act v. of 1882) and, if so whether they have proved the same? (3) Whether the Courts below were right in accepting the right of privacy pleaded by the plaintiffs in regard to the opening of the window by the defendant (appellant herein) in the southern wall of his building? (4) Whether the judgment and decree of the Court below in upholding the right of privacy of the plaintiffs is legal? (5) Whether the Judgments and decrees of the Courts below deserve to be confirmed or set aside?

( 2 ). The respondents herein are the plaintiffs and the appellant is the defendant in O. S. No. 158 of 1986 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, ongole. The plaintiffs filed the suit for mandatory injunction to remove the skeleton window in the southern wall of the building of the defendant and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from opening any window or ventilators in the wall W2 W3 and to close the openings at W W2 and W1 w3 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from doing any such acts detrimental to the interests of the plaintiffs. A suit sketch is filed by the plaintiffs and the contents of the same are not in serious dispute. A a-1, A-2, A-3 are the houses belonging to the plaintiffs. The defendant is the owner of plot B. The defendant demolished the old house in the plot B and wanted to put up a new structure and in the southern wall W W1 he proposed to open the windows and he was trying to open the ventilators also in the wall. The plaintiffs pleaded the right of privacy to their bath room and latrine which were on the southern side of the building of the defendant. The defendant denied the right of privacy to the plaintiffs. He also pleaded that windows were in existence since long even prior to acquiring the right to property and did not concede the right of the plaintiffs to open the windows in the southern wall.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for determination: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for? (3) To what relief?

( 4 ) DURING the trial, the plaintiff No. 3 examined himself as P. W. 1 and defendant himself as D. W. I and one witness is examined as D. W. 2. Exs. B-1 to B-8 were marked as documentary evidence for the defendant and no documents were marked for the plaintiffs. After hearing both sides and with the materials before him, the learned District Munsif recorded a finding that no window was existing in the southern wall of the building of the defendant and he was opening such window or ventilators afresh while constructing the wall and it affected the right of privacy of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit was decreed, directing the defendant to close the windows put up in the southern wall, failing which, the plaintiffs are entitled to get the same closed through the Court at the cost of the defendant. The matter was taken up in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, ongole in A. S. No. 105 of 1993. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing both sides and after reassessment of the entire materials, but for his own reasons, affirmed the findings of the learned District Munsif inasmuch as the judgment and decree passed by him. The Second Appeal thus arises out of such concurrent findings of the judgments and decrees of the two Courts supra.

( 5 ). Mr. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, the learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that both the Courts below have ignored the settled law that there was no right of privacy in India a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document