VENKATESWARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the decision in A. S. No. 31/1975 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy by which the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 21/1970 on the file of the District Munsif, Medak was confirmed. Defendants in the suit are the appellants before this Court.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF (respondent) is the owner of the house bearing No. 3-4-64 and situate in Bada Bazaar, Medak Town. Defendants (appellants) are the owners of the house bearing No. 3-4-67 and lying to the east of the plaintiffs house. There is some vacant space to the east of the plaintiffs house and west of the wall FGHJIA of the plaint plan, belonging to the defendants. There is admittedly a well in this vacant space and it is also not in dispute that the vacant space and the well in it are accessible to the plaintiff and the members of his family through a door way in their house which opens into the said vacant space. The plaintiffs case is that he is the exclusive owner of the vacant site and the well referred to above and the 2nd defendant, who was recently granted permission by the Municipality to reconstruct his house, high-handedly made some openings in his wall FGHIJA with a view to fix windows, therein, contrary to his building plan approved by the Municipality and with a view to cause inconvenience to the plaintiff and the members of his family, including ladies, who have been using the vacant space and that they should, therefore be restrained by a perpetual injunction from opening any window or door in the aforesaid wall and should also be directed by means of a mandatory injunction to close the openings already made by them in the wall FGHIJA. This suit was resisted by the defendants, contending inter alia, that the vacant space lying in between their western wall and the plaintiffs house is their joint site and not the exclusive property of the plaintiff and that even otherwise, the plaintiff is not entitled to question their right to open windows in the wall which belongs exclusively to them.

( 3 ) THE following issues were set down for trial on the basis of the pleadings: (1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the house No. 3-4-64 as alleged in the plaint? (2) Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the open space between the alleged house of plaintiff and the house of defendants? (3) Whether the defendants have no right to open windows in the wall FGHIJA of the plaint plan? (4) Whether the judgments of Mr. Mir Majlis of 1355 Fasli, 1358 Fasli and 1952 are valid and binding on the parties and what is the effect of the said judgment? (5) To what relief?

( 4 ) ON a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties the trial Court found on all the issues, including issue No. 3, in favour of the plaintiff as it came to the conclusion that the defendants are entitled to open only ventilators and not windows in the suit wall for the ground-floor of their house as can be seen from Ex. B-3, plan that was sanctioned by the Municipality and that their attempt at opening windows, contrary to the permission granted by the Municipality, would have the effect of infringing the right of privacy enjoyed by the plaintiff and the members of his family and accordingly decreed the suit with costs as prayed for. This decision was confirmed in appeal, for almost identical reasons as were set out in the judgment of the trial Court. Hence this second appeal by the defendants as, according to them, the conclusion arrived at the Courts below that they are not entitled to open windows in the wall which admittedly belongs to them and that the windows, if permitted to be opened, would infringe the plaintiffs right of privacy, is contrary to law. No attempt is made by them to question the legality or correctness of the finding reached by them that the plaintiff is exclusively entitled to the open space lying in between his house and their wall FGHIJA.

( 5 ) THE first question that therefore, arises for con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document