JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - Ram Chand son of Gyasi Ram, the defendant, has filed this second appeal against an appellate decree directing the demolition of a Chabutara to the west of his house in Gali Ahiran, Deeg Darwaza in the city of Mathura and upholding the decree of the trial court restraining him by means of an injunction from raising any constructions in the land denoted by letters. A, B, C, D in the map (33-Ga-2) forming part of the decree. The trial court had refused the relief of demolition in the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent Ram Chand son of Bhure Ram. It had, however, decreed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from raising constructions over the land. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that to the north of his house in Deeg Darwaza in the city of Mathura is a chowk piece of land belonging jointly to the people residing in that area and a door and windows of his house opened towards it. The defendants house is situate towards the east of the chowk and his door opens into it. Initially the defendant had a Chabutara (raised platform) adjoining the western wall of his house which was 3 in width. This width was increased by the defendant by 3 within three months of the filing of the suit while the plaintiff was away. He also intended to make further constructions. This extension of the Chabutara resulted in encroachment over the common land which the plaintiff claimed, in the alternative, to be a public way. The defendant did not remove the encroachment and was threatening to make further constructions. Hence the suit for the relief of demolition of the extended portion of the Chabutara and for injunction. 3. The defendant took the stand that the land in suit was not Shamilati but was his exclusive property. The plaintiffs main door did not open into this land but opened towards the south on the main Agra-Delhi road. Further, the defendant had constructed over his own land and had not encroached upon Shamilati land at all. The constructions raised by him did not interfere with the opening of the plaintiffs door. It was wrong to allege that the land in suit was public way. 4. During the trial court, Commissioners inspected the site and submitted their reports. They also prepared site plans. The constructions raised by him did not interfere with the opening of the plaintiffs door. It was wrong to allege that the land in suit was public way. 4. During the trial court, Commissioners inspected the site and submitted their reports. They also prepared site plans. Sri Jugal Kishore Chaturvedi one such Commissioner, mentioned in his report dated December 2, 1966 that in the map accompanying his report was shown the Chabutara built by the defendant by letters A, B, C, D. It appeared to have been built in two portions at two different times. The trial court, dealing with the defendants objection to this report, observed in its order dated March 3, 1967 that, inasmuch as, the Commissioner was not required to give his opinion about the time of the construction of the Chabutara, his observation that the Chabutara was built on two different occasions shall not be read. 5. The trial court framed the necessary issues and came to the conclusion, after discussing the evidence on record, that the land in suit belonged to the people of the locality as Shamilati land but the portion covered by the disputed Chabutara belonged to the defendant. It also felt that the people had a right of way over it. The defendant was, therefore, restrained by means of perpetual injunction from raising any construction over the common land but the suit was dismissed in respect of the relief for demolition of the Chabutara. This decree was assailed both by the plaintiff and the defendant. 6. The lower appellate court, as noted earlier, upheld the decree of the trial court in so far as it restrained the defendant from raising any constructions. It, however, reversed it in regard to the relief regarding demolition of the extension made by the defendant to the pre-existing Chabutara. It went into evidence on record afresh and held that the land in suit was a Shamilati land. On that finding it did not go into the question whether it was a public way or not. It found that the land belonged to the plaintiff the defendant and one Bhagwan Das and the three of them only had adjoining houses and used it. The Commissioners report, according to the lower appellate court, showed that the Chabutara seemed to have been built by the defendant in two portions at two different times. It found that the land belonged to the plaintiff the defendant and one Bhagwan Das and the three of them only had adjoining houses and used it. The Commissioners report, according to the lower appellate court, showed that the Chabutara seemed to have been built by the defendant in two portions at two different times. The court felt that the width of the Chabutara had been increased by 3' by the defendant. Consequently, it directed its demolition. 7. The finding that the land on three sides of which stood the houses of the plaintiff, the defendant and Bhagwan Das was Shamilati and was being used by the three of them alone is one based upon appreciation of evidence and has, consequently, to be accepted. The question, however, is whether the decree for demolition passed by the lower appellate court should be upheld. Learned counsel for the appellant has confined his case to this relief alone and has not assailed the concurrent decree by which the appellant has been restrained from making any constructions over the common land. 8. A perusal of the map forming part of the decree of the courts below (paper No. 33-Ga-2) shows that the main entrance to the plaintiffs house is towards west on the Delhi-Agra road. The report dated October 4, 1969 of Advocate-Commissioner Sri Devendra Kumar Gupta indicates that the plaintiffs door which opens on the disputed land is not big enough to permit entry of any Tonga or Thela through it. The disputed Chabutara denoted by letters E. F. G. He adjoins the western wall of the defendants house and the extension made by the defendant has, on the case of the plaintiff himself, encroached over 3 wide strip of land with a total width of about 17. It is also clear that this extension does not in any manner interfere with the user of the plaintiffs door or pinjer (windows) nor does it interfere with the flow of water through his drains. The extension is towards the north of the defendants door which opens towards the west on the land in suit. The court below has not found that the extension made by the defendant to his Chabutara results in any inconvenience to the plaintiff or to the only other person, namely, Bhagwan Das who apart from the plaintiff and the defendant, has a house adjoining the land in suit. The court below has not found that the extension made by the defendant to his Chabutara results in any inconvenience to the plaintiff or to the only other person, namely, Bhagwan Das who apart from the plaintiff and the defendant, has a house adjoining the land in suit. The plaintiff in his testimony alleged that the defendant wanted to construct a room on the Shamilati land and that if he did so, his door, drains and pinjer would get closed and the show of his house and its appearance would be adversely affected. He has not alleged that, by the extension of the Chabutara any inconvenience had been caused to him. His other witnesses have also not stated a word about any inconvenience being caused to any of the three residents on account of the extension in the Chabutara made by the defendant 9. In the circumstances aforesaid, the mere fact that the land in suit was Shamilati land of the plaintiff, the defendant and Bhagwan Das was not enough to direct demolition of the defendants Chabutara as has been done by the lower appellate court. After all the discretion in such matters is to be guided by considerations of justice, equity and good conscience as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Chhedilal and another v. Chhoteylal, (A.I.R. 1951 Allahabad 199). On the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the decree for perpetual injunction granted by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court was sufficient to ensure protection of the plaintiffs rights. Direction for demolition of the extended portion of the Chabutara was not necessary. In making that direction the lower appellate court cannot be said to have kept before itself consideration of equity and justice but appears to have felt that upon proof of joint ownership of the land in suit, the court was bound to grant the relief of demolition of the disputed construction as a matter of course. In making that direction the lower appellate court cannot be said to have kept before itself consideration of equity and justice but appears to have felt that upon proof of joint ownership of the land in suit, the court was bound to grant the relief of demolition of the disputed construction as a matter of course. As held by the Full Bench in the aforesaid case, while a co-sharer is entitled to object to another co-sharer exclusively appropriating land to himself to the detriment of other co-sharer, the question as to what relief should be granted to the plaintiff in the event of the invasion of his rights will depend upon the circumstances of each case and that the relief of demolition and injunction will be granted or withheld by the court as the circumstances of the case justify. 10. In the instant case, it is clear that the demolition of the extended portion of the Chabutara over the land in suit was not necessary at all. The decree of the lower appellate court, in that respect, needs to be vacated. 11. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The plaintiffs suit shall stand dismissed for the relief of demolition of the Chabutara as prayed in relief 'A'. In other respects, its decree is upheld. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.