( 1 ) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1988 passed by the learned 5th Additional district Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1983 whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 14-12-1982 passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit no. 1090/78 dismissing the suit was set aside and the original defendant was directed to close one window and one ventilator over it in the southern wall to the east of the door. He was also directed to remove the stairs to the south of the door beyond his southern wall, the shed and gallery projecting over the land of plaintiff beyond the limits of southern wall of his house. ( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that the house bearing No. 795 is owned by the plaintiff where as house No. 796 has been purchased by the defendant from one Abdul Rahman and after the purchase of the house in 1975, a plan for reconstruction of the house was submitted to the Municipal Corporation in the year 1978. The plan was got sanctioned and the defendant started reconstruction of the house. According to the plaintiff, he was not entitled to open any door in the southern wall of his house nor was entitled to open a window in the southern wall of his house. Notice was served on him and he was called upon to stop the construction, but in vain. The construction was completed and one window and one ventilator in the southern wall invaded the right of privacy of the plaintiff. Therefore, the latter was constrained to file the suit for closing the window and ventilator and also for injunction seeking removal of the stairs case, shed and gallery projecting over the land of the plaintiff beyond the southern limit of the wall of the defendants house. ( 3 ) THE defendant denied that he has ever invaded the right of privacy of the plaintiff by opening the window and ventilator in the southern wall to the east of the door and made any encroachment by erecting the stair case, shed and gallery projecting over the land of the plaintiff beyond the limits of southern wall. ( 3 ) THE defendant denied that he has ever invaded the right of privacy of the plaintiff by opening the window and ventilator in the southern wall to the east of the door and made any encroachment by erecting the stair case, shed and gallery projecting over the land of the plaintiff beyond the limits of southern wall. The parties relied on oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned 6th Joint civil Judge, Jr. Dn. , on appreciation of the evidence dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit carried appeal to the District Court. The learned 5th Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the order dismissing the suit and granted the relief as mentioned above. It is this judgment and decree passed by the 5th Additional District judge which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 4 ) MR. Moharil, learned counsel, for the appellant/defendant contended that the first appellate Court has granted the relief to the plaintiff which was not claimed in the plaint. The admissions given by the plaintiff and his witnesses support the case of the defendant, and there was no reason for the first appellate Court to reverse the finding of dismissal given by the trial Court. In fact, the defendant did not make any encroachment on the open land of the plaintiff nor he has invaded the right of her privacy. The suit claiming relief of mandatory injunction is not maintainable and the first appellate court did not consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in support of their claim and the findings are based on the basis of admissions and presumptions. He, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court cannot be sustained-in-law. ( 5 ) MR. Khan, learned counsel, for the respondent/plaintiff fully supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and contended that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) MR. Khan, learned counsel, for the respondent/plaintiff fully supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and contended that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. He contended that the first appellate Court has considered the document in proper perspective and rightly recorded the finding that the plaintiff is a Muslim lady and one of her tenants is also a Muslim and, therefore, the defendant cannot open a new window or ventilaor in his wall abutting the enclosed house of the plaintiff whereby he invaded upon right of privacy enjoyed by the plaintiff and other ladies living there. He contended that the first appellate court has recorded the finding of facts and the defendant cannot challenge the relief granted by the first appellate court whereby he has been directed to close one window and one ventilator over it in the southern wall to the east of the door, with a further direction to remove the stairs to the south of the door beyond his southern wall, the shet and gallery projecting over the land of the plaintiff beyond the limits of southern wall of his house. ( 6 ) THIS Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the defendant has purchased the house No. 796 from one Abdul Rahman by virtue of the sale-deed (Ex. 50) to which the map (Ex. 24) is annexed which shows the result of compromise decree passed on 12-1-1965 in regular Civil Suit No. 295 of 1965 which was filed by Abdul Rahman against Mehrunnisa seeking partition of the property. The first appellate court has recorded the finding that on perusal of the sale-deed and map, it is difficult to imagine that there was any window in the southern wall which was used for closing the court-yard. Similarly to the west of the said passage there is shown a latrine but that latrine is also away from the southern wall towards north and as such there is no possibility of existence of any window in the southern wall even to the west of the passage and drainage. Similarly to the west of the said passage there is shown a latrine but that latrine is also away from the southern wall towards north and as such there is no possibility of existence of any window in the southern wall even to the west of the passage and drainage. The first appellate Court also observed that in view of the oral evidence led by the parties, it is not possible to accept that even in the old house there were windows opening in the southern wall. ( 7 ) THE first appellate Court rightly observed that the defendant has submitted plan to the Municipal Corporation regarding the construction of the house and the map clearly shows that the defendant was to construct his house after leaving 1. 5 meters wide open court yard towards South. At the southern boundary of his house there was to be a wall and naturally he was required to make construction of rooms after leaving 1. 5 meters space towards north. As such as per the sanctioned plan he could not make construction of any room abutting the southern wall of his house nor he could open any windows or ventilators. From the evidence on record, the appellate court held that it is clearly established that the defendant made the construction of two rooms making the southern wall and in that wall he also opened a door, two windows and three ventilators. Fixing of the door, windows and the ventilators was not permitted under the sanctioned plan by the Municipal Corporation. ( 8 ) THE first appellate court therefore rightly recorded the finding of fact that the defendant has encroached upon the land of the plaintiff and constructed one window and one ventilator over it in the southern wall to the east of the door and also stairs to the south of the door beyond the southern wall projecting over the land of the plaintiff beyond the limits of southern wall of defendants house. ( 9 ) THE decision of Punjab and haryana High Court in the case of Kaur Sain vs. Bibi Birinder Kaur - AIR 1971 P. and H. 489 would be relevant wherein it has been held "that a person has a right to open windows and ventilators in his own wall abutting the neighbours land unless thereby he invades the privacy or other pre-existing and well established right of his neighbour but he has no right to open a door abutting the land of his neighbour. " ( 10 ) IN Ganeshi Lal Vs. Rasool fatima - AIR 1977 All 118 , it has been held "that the custom of purdah prevailing in India has been recognised by courts in the U. P. since almost a century. The question whether or not the purdah is in keeping with the social development of India would not be a matter for consideration in the law courts. The right of privacy of a purdanashin lady is still recognized, even though the concept of Purdah may be gradually disappearing. If the law or the law courts recognize the right of privacy of an individual that right is to be protected. No one would like, specially in India, irrespective of the caste and creed to countenance their ladies while in their homes busy in the domestic routine of life being watched, observed or stealthily stared by strangers. The Indian women have always been jealous of intrusion in their privacy in their homes. It is not always that the women inside the house (sic) is a right of every woman and much more so for a woman who has inhibitions by custom or religious notions to appear in public and keeps herself in seclusion by observing purdah. In the circumstances, it was held that the defendant had infringed the right of privacy of the plaintiff who was a purdanashin lady by opening new windows in his house. In the circumstances, it was held that the defendant had infringed the right of privacy of the plaintiff who was a purdanashin lady by opening new windows in his house. ( 11 ) IN the present case, it is quite obvious that the defendant has invaded the right of privacy of plaintiff because it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a Muslim lady and one of her tenants is also a Muslim and therefore the defendant cannot open a new window or ventilator in his wall abutting the enclosed house of the plaintiff whereby he can invade upon the right of privacy enjoyed by the plaintiff and other ladies living there. It is also clear from the map (Ex. 24) and map (Ex. 50) that the southern wall of the house of the plaintiff is in line with a southern wall of the house of one Rao saheb, which is to the west of defendants house. Admittedly, the defendant has constructed his southern wall on the site of the old southern wall. However, the photograph (Ex. 46) shows that he has constructed the stairs to the south of the door on the open land of the plaintiff and this is clearly an encroachment on the plaintiffs land. Similarly, the shed over the door and windows projects beyond her southern wall towards south on the land of the plaintiff. Similarly, the slab of the defendants house also projects beyond his southern limit and thereby he has made a gallery. This projection of gallery and the shed above the door and windows is also encroachment on the property of the plaintiff. All these important facts have been lost sight by the trial Court and, therefore, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. However, the learned first appellate Court on consideration of the legal position and the factual position has recorded a finding that the defendant has constructed one window, one ventilator in the w all of the plaintiff and also constructed stairs to the south of the door projecting over the land of the plaintiff beyond the limits of southern wall. However, the learned first appellate Court on consideration of the legal position and the factual position has recorded a finding that the defendant has constructed one window, one ventilator in the w all of the plaintiff and also constructed stairs to the south of the door projecting over the land of the plaintiff beyond the limits of southern wall. In such a situation, it is quite clear that the defendant has infringed the right of privacy of plaintiff who was a pardanashin lady by opening a window in her house and the decisions of Allahabad High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the the first appellate court has rightly considered the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions. ( 12 ) ON thoughtful consideration of the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant, this Court does not find any force in the contention that the first appellate court ha. s committed an error of law in granting relief which was not claimed by the plaintiff. In fact the amendment was made by the plaintiff in the plaint which related back to the date of the plaint. It was specifically mentioned in the amendment that the defendant has hurriedly completed the construction and made encroachment on the right of privacy of the plaintiff and also on her land and, therefore, she sought mandatory injunction to demolish the structure and to restore it to her as it existed on 13-9-1978. In such a situation, it is not possible to accept that the appellate court has granted the relief to the plaintiff which has not been claimed. Similarly, it is not possible to disturb the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court that the defendant has made encroachment by constructing the stairs, shed and gallery projecting over the land of the plaintiff beyond the limits of southern wall, as this finding of fact is based on the documentary evidence produced on record including the plan of the construction, sale-deed of the house and the map appended to it. ( 13 ) IN the result, this Court has come to the conclusion that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.