ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. Record perused. This is plaintiffs' second appeal against the reversing judgment and decree in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Dispute relates to window and ventilators facing the house of appellants. They claimed it be declared that respondent has no right to open window and ventilators facing their residential house and the windows and ventilators be directed to be closed by permanent injunction. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs and defendant are residing in Shujalpur. They are owners of adjoining houses. 2. According to appellants, respondent reconstructed his house and on the first floor, respondent opened window and ventilators on the wall facing the house of the appellants. According to the appellants, this, infringed their right of privacy, therefore, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction as stated above was filed. The suit allegations were denied by the defendant and it was pleaded that window and ventilators already existed in the double storied house which was purchased by his father by the registered sale deed in the year 1953. He further alleged that house was renovated and window and ventilators were fixed for the purpose of air and light. With these pleadings, parties went to trial and adduced evidence. Learned trial Judge considering the evidence brought on record found that the appellants' right of privacy was infringed by opening of windows and ventilators and, therefore, decreed the suit. On an appeal by the defendant, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was reversed and the suit was dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree, hence this appeal under section 100 of the CPC. 3. After having heard Shri V.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants at length and going through the records of the Courts below, we do not find any merit and substance in this appeal. In India, right of privacy has been recognized by Legislature by inserting Illustration (b) to section 18 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882. A bare perusal of provisions would show right of privacy has been recognized as customary easement. It is a negative easement which prevents the servient owner from building on his own land so as substantially to interfere with the privacy of the occupants of dominant heritage. There should be clear and sufficient pleadings and sufficient proof of this negative customary easement. It is a negative easement which prevents the servient owner from building on his own land so as substantially to interfere with the privacy of the occupants of dominant heritage. There should be clear and sufficient pleadings and sufficient proof of this negative customary easement. In case in hand, there is neither pleading nor sufficient proof of this negative customary right by cogent evidence. The suit was not based on easement which protects the right of privacy. For want of adequate pleadings and proof, it could not be said that opening of windows and ventilators would come within the prohibition contained in section 18 of Act. There is no evidence to that effect that by merely opening the windows and ventilators the respondent has caused any nuisance or there was any invasion of privacy of the occupants of appellants house. Merely on the basis of apprehension, conjectures or surmises and without laying down proper foundations in pleading duly established by cogent and relevant evidence, it was correctly held by the lower appellate Court that the plaintiffs were not entitled for any relief and the suit was rightly dismissed. 4. Thus, we find no illegality or perversity with the finding recorded by Court below. In the opinion of this Court, this appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law, which is a sine qua non for admitting a second appeal for hearing u/s 100 of the CPC. Since the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence, therefore, they are binding on this Court. [see Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001 (1) JLJ 401 = AIR 2001 SC 965 ]. While arriving at such findings, Court below did not consider any inadmissible evidence and as such, there is no scope for interference with such findings. [see Ishwar Das Jain v. Sohanlal, AIR 2000 SC 426 ]. Thus, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment and decree. Appeal stands dismissed summarily without any order as to costs.