Back
1973 Supreme(All) 125
Allahbad High Court
HARISWARUP
Abdul Sattar - Appellant
Versus
Chhaji Lal - Respondent
Decided On : 05/10/1973
A.N. Varma, for Appellant; Raja Ram Agrawal, for Respondents.
Every person has the right to open as many windows in their wall as they like, and the neighbor cannot compel them to make the wall or close the windows.
Headnote:
Privacy Rights - Injunction - The court held that the plaintiff's right to privacy was not disturbed by the windows and that the plaintiff had no right of privacy in respect of the courtyard to the north. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower appellate court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a mandatory injunction to close the defendants' windows and for a permanent prohibitory injunction to protect their privacy. The trial court decreed the suit, but the defendants appealed and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The lower appellate court found that the plaintiff's right to privacy was not affected by the windows and that they had no right of privacy in relation to the courtyard to the north. The appeal was dismissed, stating that every person has the right to open as many windows in their wall as they like, and the neighbor cannot compel them to make the wall or close the windows.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff's right to privacy was violated by the defendants' windows and whether they had a right of privacy in relation to the courtyard to the north.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that every person has the right to open as many windows in their wall as they like, and the neighbor cannot compel them to make the wall or close the windows. The plaintiff's suit was deemed misconceived.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
2. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff's right to privacy was not disturbed by the windows and that the plaintiff had no right of privacy in respect of the courtyard to the north. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the findings of the Court below are vitiated in law as they are based on misreading of evidence. It is not necessary in this case to go into the merits, as the decree suffers from no error of law. Every person has a right to open as many windows in his wall as he likes; he may even demolish the entire w All. His neighbour cannot compel him to make the wall or close the windows. The neighbour may protect his privacy by making a wall on his own land. The plaintiff's suit was thus misconceived.
3. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
