The continued existence of doors, windows, and ventilators on another's land without a prescriptive right of easement is a continuing wrong and can be restrained by injunction.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants second appeal in a suit for injunction.

( 2 ) THE first respondent Bahadur since deceased and now represented by his widow and the second respondent Mst. Kishora who was also died and is now represented by her legal representative who were the plaintiffs in the suit giving rise to this second appeal. The third respondent Lachchman was the 7th defendant in the suit. The said plaintiffs prayed for three sets of injunction (1) a mandatory injunction for closing the doors, ventilators and windows which had been opened by the defendants in their houses towards the land in suit which bears the number C. K. 61/38a denoted by letters Ka Kha, Gha on the plaint map and lies to the east of the defendants houses (2) prohibiting the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the land in suit and (3) restraining the defendants from closing the Gali which lies to the south of the land in suit and from interfering with its use by the tenants of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claimed in the alternative decree for possession over the land in suit.

( 3 ) THE trial court decreed the suit for the second and the third injunctions but dismissed it in respect of the first of the above injunctions. The plaintiffs appealed to the District court from the dismissal to their suit in respect of the first injunction while the defendants appealed to the district court against decree of the trial court decreeing the suit for the last two injunctions in respect of the land in suit and the Gali. Both the appeals were heard by the court of the 1st additional Civil Judge, Varanasi. The plaintiffs appeal being civil appeal No. 434 of 1966 was allowed and the first injunction directing the defendants to close the doors, ventilators and the windows was also decreed. The defendants appeal being civil appeal No. 4 of 1967 was dismissed and the decree of the trial court in respect of the second and the third injunctions was confirmed.

( 4 ) THE relevant facts may now be stained. According to the plaintiffs case the land in suit belonged to one Sheikh Ilahi Bux, who sold it to Smt, Budhna on 10th Feb. 1897. The first plaintiff Bahadur is the grandson of Smt. Budhnas husbands brother Girdhari, and claims to have become the sole owner of the land after the death of his father Sita Ram and uncle Hari who were the sons of Girdhari. To the east of the land in suit was the house of one Babu Kasera which fell down and became Khandhar and was purchased by the second plaintiff who is in possession of the same. The Gali which lies to the south of the land in suit is a private lane, Hori lal, father of defendant appellants Nos. 1 to 3 wrongfully got his name recorded over the land in suit, opened a door from house no. CK 61/41 which he had purchased on 13th February, 1964 and closed the Gali in suit. He also had two ventilators and two windows in his residential house, although prior to 15th April, 1954 there was only one window towards the Gali and that too had been opened with the permission of the plaintiffs. It was then alleged by the plaintiffs that since the defendants were threatening to occupy the land in suit by force, hence it had become necessary to file the suit.

( 5 ) THE defendants denied the plaintiffs title to the land in suit and claimed that it belonged to their family and was in their possession. It was also claimed that the suit was barred by Arts. 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act. Some other pleas were also raised.

( 6 ) THE trial court found that the first plaintiff was the owner of the land in suit and the second plaintiff of the land to the east thereof as claimed by them, and that the suit was not barred by time. It, however, dismissed the suit for mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to close the doors, ventilators and the windows on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they caused any injury to them. With regard to the Galli, the trial court found that the pl