B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE defendant in the original suit is the appellant herein. The respondent herein filed the suit praying for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant/ defendant from interfering with her possession of the western wall of the schedule mentioned terraced house. The trial Court after elaborate consideration of the matter dismissed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent/ plaintiff preferred an appeal and the learned lower appellate judge reversed the decree and judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit. ( 2 ) SRI P. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant in this second appeal submits that the learned lower appellate judge failed to take into consideration the oral evidence let in by the parties and erroneously came to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff has made out a case for grant of decree of perpetual injunction. It is also urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned lower appellate judge failed to take into consideration the Commissioner s report, Ex. C-1. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the respondent/ plaintiff that she purchased the suit schedule property from one S. Mohammed hussain Sahab under a registered sale deed dated 22-04-1974. According to her, she purchased the said building, including the entire Eastern and Western side walls. Originally the said house was purchased by shaik Ismail Saheb from one Narayana swami Naicker under a registered sale deed dated 17-07-1935. According to the respondent/plaintiff since the date of purchase, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned house, including the walls and prior to it, her predecessors in title have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. ( 4 ) THE appellant/defendant purchased the house to the Western side of the suit schedule property in the year 1976. Neither the appellant/defendant nor his vendors have any right over the western side wall of the suit schedule property. The respondent/plaintiff submits that the appellant/defendant recently started claiming rights over the western side wall of the suit schedule property. ( 5 ) THE appellant/defendant opposed the suit and according to him, the western side wall of the suit schedule property from south to North to an extent of 30 8" belong to the respondent/plaintiff, subject to support on pillars and roof of the appellant/defendant. ( 5 ) THE appellant/defendant opposed the suit and according to him, the western side wall of the suit schedule property from south to North to an extent of 30 8" belong to the respondent/plaintiff, subject to support on pillars and roof of the appellant/defendant. It is also the case of the appellant/defendant that rest of the western wall is a joint wall and out of the said joint wall, the next 15 7" wall from south to North, the possession of the appellant/defendant is joint along with the respondent / plaintiff. ( 6 ) THE learned lower appellate judge having considered the entire material available on record came to the conclusion that Ex A-1, is the title deed through which the suit schedule property along with other property was purchased by the respondent/plaintiff. Ex A-2 is the title deed of her vendor and Ex A-3 is the title deed of her vendor s vendor. ( 7 ) THE learned lower appellate Judge after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to the right conclusion that ultimately the rights of the appellant/respondent have to be decided basing on Exs. A-1, A-2, A-3, B-1 and B-2. Under those circumstances, the learned judge has not attached much significance to the Commissioner s report, Ex C-1. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, the commissioner cannot decide the rights of the parties, except noting the physical features for which purpose, he was appointed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is not correct in submitting that the learned lower appellate judge failed to appreciate the oral evidence available on record. The Judgment would clearly reveal that the learned Judge has re-appreciated the entire evidence and the material available on record, including the report of the Commissioner, Ex. C-l. ( 8 ) RE-APPRECIATION of evidence in this second appeal is not permissible. No question of law, muchless any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. ( 9 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the finding recorded by the learned lower appellate Judge that the respondent/ plaintiff has successfully made out a case for granting perpetual injunction against the appellant/defendant does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmities calling for interference by this Court, in this second appeal. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY the second appeal shall stand dismissed. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY the second appeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.