JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 14.11.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District - Churu, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sujangarh has been affirmed and the cross-objection filed by the respondent has been allowed. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff - respondent filed a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the appellants with the averments that the plaintiff's Guwadi is situated in Village - Salasar for over 40 years, wherein, he lives with his family; on the north-western corner of the said Guwadi, there is a room, on the western wall of the said room, there is a 4 X 21/2 feet window with doors and iron bars; outside the window, there is a Government vacant land, which is part of the way and is a strip land, from the said vacant land the plaintiff gets light, air and sunlight and above the window, there is a ventilator also; it was further indicated that on the western side of his Guwadi, defendants' Guwadi is situated, the northern boundary of defendants' Guwadi is till where the said window starts, however, the defendants want to extent the same so as to encroach on the strip land and close the plaintiff's window; if defendants raise construction near the window, the same would result in stopping the light, air and sunlight and, whereas the plaintiff has right of easement, when they tried to reason with the defendants, the defendants refused. 3. During pendency of the suit, the suit was amended and it was, inter alia, submitted that after filing of the suit, on 12.03.2003 the defendants have raised new construction at the disputed side by raising pillars and putting a roof over it, and on 13.03.2003 they have constructed a brick-wall and has closed the window resulting in stopping of the light, air and sunlight and, therefore, injunction be issued against the defendants not to block the light, air and sunlight and further not to raise construction on the strip land and declare that the plaintiff was entitled for light, air and sunlight and mandatory injunction for removal of the wall constructed during pendency of the suit. 4. 4. A written statement was filed by the defendants, it was claimed that no room, as claimed was existing at the side as there are two big iron shutters from before 20 years, if in fact the room existed, there was no reason to put up big shutter, there was no Government vacant land or strip land in front of plaintiff's window. The plaintiff was wrongly seeking to get the window opened in the name of light, air and sunlight and wants to destroy the privacy of defendants home and business, which is adjacent; no cause of action is available; the valuation of the suit is incorrect, the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the Court; Gram Panchayat, Salasar is a necessary party and, therefore, the suit be dismissed. 5. A replication was filed disputing the averments made in the written statement and it was reiterated that the window has always remained open, the land was a strip land and the plaintiff was entitled for removal of the obstruction illegally created against the window. 6. The trial court framed nine issues; on behalf of the plaintiff, four witnesses were examined and seven documents were exhibited; on behalf of the defendants only defendant Purnmal was examined and no document was produced. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion about existence of room, window and that the plaintiff was getting light and air from the said window, the defendants have raised construction and have obstructed light and air and the plaintiff was entitled for permanent and mandatory injunction; the valuation of the suit was proper; the plaintiff had the cause of action to file the suit, the Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit; the Gram Panchayat, Salasar was not a necessary party and ultimately directed by way of mandatory injunction to remove the wall constructed outside the window within a period of two months and if the same was not done within a period of two months, the plaintiff was entitled to get the same done through the Court process. 7. However, the trial court while deciding issue No.2, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that there was vacant land, strip land of public way outside the window. 7. However, the trial court while deciding issue No.2, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that there was vacant land, strip land of public way outside the window. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Sujangarh; the plaintiff filed cross-objection regarding finding on issue No.2. 8. The learned first appellate court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court on the issues other than issue No.2 was justified and did not require any interference. However, on the finding of issue No.2 recorded by the trial court against the plaintiff, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the land outside the window was a strip land part of the way and, consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and accepted the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the courts below were not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was submitted that the window was disturbing the privacy of the defendants and the plaintiff had no easement of light and air from the said window and, consequently, the findings being wholly perverse, the same deserves to be set aside. It was further submitted that the appellate court was not justified in reversing the finding of issue No.2. It was claimed that the necessary ingredients for seeking injunction based on easement were not fulfilled and, therefore, the courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. 10. Arguments were also raised on the documents filed with the application under Order 41, Rule 27 , wherein, the appellant has sought to produce a sale-deed pertaining to the plaintiff's land, a complaint made by one Bhanwar Lal, complaining about the narrowing road in pursuance to which the Patwari, Salasar had submitted the final report, a Map of the disputed area and an application made by plaintiff Chautmal seeking a Patta of land owned by him. It was submitted that the documents clearly reveal that the plaintiff is in possession of more land than what is actually owned by him and, therefore, he has no right to seek injunction. 11. It was submitted that the documents clearly reveal that the plaintiff is in possession of more land than what is actually owned by him and, therefore, he has no right to seek injunction. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant on the appeal as well as the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for placing on record additional evidence. 12. The findings recorded by both the courts below regarding existence of a room on the north-western corner of plaintiff's Guwadi, a window in the western wall, the plaintiff getting light, air and sunlight from the said window having been closed by the defendants during the pendency of the suit are essentially findings of fact and despite taking this court through certain statements, no perversity in the findings of both the courts below could be pointed out. 13. The finding recorded by the first appellate court on issue No.2 reversing the finding of the trial court on the said issue is also justified as the trial court without considering the evidence in proper perspective had decided the said issue against the plaintiff. The very fact that the vacant land exists outside the window of the plaintiff and the same admittedly is not owned by the defendants, there was no reason to come to a conclusion that the said land was not a strip land and part of the public way, therefore, the said finding of the first appellate court also does not call for any interference. 14. So far as the plea for the first time is sought to be raised by the appellant based on the documents filed as additional evidence that the plaintiff has encroached on the public way and the window in fact is situated on the encroached area, the said ground/plea does not advance the cause of the appellant inasmuch as even if a plea is accepted, the same cannot arm the defendants from blocking the window by way of constructing a wall and to themselves seek to encroach on the said land. 15. 15. The report of the Patwari, Salasar by itself cannot prove any encroachment on part of the plaintiff, as the said report merely indicates that the road was quite narrow and was less than the record, however, the report is in quite general terms and does not point out anything, so as to have any effect on the present litigation. The claim of the plaintiff for issuance of Patta by making an application to the Gram Panchayat, Salasar by itself cannot be a reason to assume that the land in question was any wayless than what was claimed by the plaintiff. 16. So far as the grievance raised by the appellant regarding his right to privacy is concerned, needless to observe that the remedy for such alleged violation lies somewhere else and not in the appellants themselves closing down somebody's window. 17. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the second appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC and the stay application are also dismissed.Second Appeal Dismissed. *******