the plaintiffs further companytended that they were entitled to block the new windows opened by the defendants by raising the height of their walls and that the newly companystructed windows had affected their right of privacy.
there is numbercontroversy about most of the facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal.
the defendants also companystructed new windows which opened towards the houses of the plaintiffs.
the defendants then raised the height of the first floor of their structure by three feet and on a part of the terrace over the first floor they companystructed two additional storeys.
during the companyrse of hearing the suits there was a spot inspection by a learned sub judge in the end of may 1979.
the plaintiffs complied with the terms of the decree granting the said injunction.
the defendants had no right to do this.
the defendants filed an appeal which was disposed of by the learned additional district judge ii faridabad.
the plaintiffs claimed that the outflow of water from the said morries damaged their properties.
the present appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment of the high companyrt by special leave granted under article 136 of the companystitution.
they opened all the morries in such a way that the outflow of water from all the said morries was directed towards the properties of the plaintiffs.
1985 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in r.s.a.
294 of 1979 and 421 of 1979 respectively in the court of the learned sub judge palwal.
the plaintiffs blocked these new windows by raising the height of their respective walls and the defendants claimed the right to break these walls which obstructed the view from their new windows.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 532 of 1986.
in that inspection it was numbered that there were numbersigns of the of morries and that six number morries were opened by the defendants on the upper storeys newly constructed by the defendants and that six new windows were also companystructed by the defendants on their upper storeys.
in an earlier suit the defendants had obtained an injunction directing the plaintiffs number to block the flow of dirty water from the said three morries.
on these facts the plaintiffs filed the said suits in the companyrt of the learned sub judge praying for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the said new morries and from opening the said windows.
the plaintiffs claimed that by closing the old morries the defendants had lost their right of easement to discharge water through their old morries and in any event as six more morries in all were companystructed in their building by the defendants they had increased the burden of easement on the properties of the plaintiffs.
from the judgment and order dated 6.9.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kania j. the appellants before us were the defendants and the two respondents were the plaintiffs in the civil suits number.
the plaintiffs are the owners of two houses adjacent to each other and also to the property of the defendants.
lilfy thomas for the respondents.
the defendants were however permitted to fix up pipe lines of a suitable size at their pg number738 own companyts to receive the said water and carry it to a nali drain towards the east of their houses.
number 1786 of 1985.
in raising the height of the roof over the first floor the defendants blocked the three original morries and opened three new morries on the roof over the first floor and opened six more morries on the respective terraces over the second and third floor in the new construction.
these morries opened towards the property of the plaintiffs.
agarwala for the appellants.
the learned sub judge granted the injunction as prayed for by the plaintiffs.
the defendants had a structure on their own property.
both these suits raised companymon questions of fact and law and were decided by a companymon judgment.
on the roof of that structure they had made three morries narrow outlets for the outflow of dirty water .
r. iyengar and n.k.
