JUDGMENT
Hari Swarup, J.
1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for a mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to close their windows in the eastern wall of their house and for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from doing any such act as may affect the plaintiffs’ right of privacy in respect of the Sahan, latrine and bathroom situate to the north of the plaintiff’s house. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendants plaintiff’s suit was dismissed.
2. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiffs 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 ins wall as he likes; he may even demolish the entire wall. His neighbour cannot compel him to make the wall or close the windows. The neighbour may protect ins 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.