George Knox, J.
1. The lower Appellate Court has found, as a fact, that the right of privacy enjoyed by the plaintiffs has undoubtedly been interferred with by the construction made by the defendant. The learned Vakil who appears for the appellant lays great stress upon the fact that between the plaintiffs and defendant’s house there runs a lane and contends that where a lane comes between two houses like this no right of privacy exists. I am unable to follow this contention. It does not seem to me to matter one whit whether the houses are on the same side of the street or the houses are on the opposite side of the street, indeed it seems to me that a right of privacy needs more protection from invasion when the person who invades it is opposite to the person whose right of privacy is invaded.
2. In support of his contention the learned Vakil cites a case of this Court, Joogul Lal v. Musammat Jasoda Bibee 3 N.W.P. R, 311. With all respect to the learned Judges who decided that case the view taken by this Court of recent date is not the same. The matter has been considered by this Court in Abdul Rahman v. Bhagwan Das 4 A.L.J. 445 : 29 A. 582 : A.W.N. (1907) 1.83. That case dealt with two houses in the town of Meerut and as those two houses were opposite one to the other there must have been a lane running between them.
3. It was father contended that the plaintiffs were estopped from bringing the present suit inasmuch as they did not bring it until the building was completed. They should, it is contended, have interferred when the building was commenced.
4. The lower Appellate Court has considered this point. T. agree with the finding at which it arrived.
5. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.