( 1 ) RESPONDENTS filed the suit seeking closure of the windows in the southern wall in the upstair building of the appellants shown as x and y in the plaint plan alleging that those windows, opened by the appellants in their first floor, invade their privacy. The case of the appellants is that they had to pen the windows shown as "x" and y for ventilation, and as there is no right of privacy the suit is not maintainable.

( 2 ) IN support of their case, the respondents examined the first respondent as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. A1 to A9. In support of their case, appellants examined the first appellant as D. W. 1, and did not adduce any documentary evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit inter alia, on the ground no right of privacy is available to the respondents. Appeal preferred by the respondents questioning the dismissal of their suit by the trial Court was allowed by the judgment under appeal. Hence, the second appeal by the defendants in the suit.

( 3 ) THE second appeal was admitted by a learned Judge on the following substantial questions of law.

(a)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction under the guise of right of privacy without pleading and prov

Click Here to Read the rest of this document