JUDGMENT

Gokul Prasad, J. - This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a Suit brought by them for removal of a wall alleged to have been built by the defendant on the plaintiffs' land and for the closing up three windows which were alleged to interfere with the plaintiffs' right of privacy. The defence raised was that the wall stood on defendant's own land and that two of the windows were old ones, and one a new one, and that there was no interference with the plaintiffs' right of privacy. The First Court decided that the wall was on defendant's own land and that the question of right of privacy did not arise as the land was lying waste and was rasta. It dismissed the plaintiffs' claim. The plaintiffs went up in appeal and the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the wall was on defendant's own land and that the plaintiffs could not have it removed. He further went on to hold that as there was no zenana house of the plaintiffs, there the question of the right of privacy did not arise. The existence of the right of privacy does not depend on the caste or creed of the person owning it or on the fact, viz., if it was used by the ladies. It is a custom of the country and has a