JUDGMENT 1. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 13.9.1982 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur in Civil First Appeal No. 4/1979 by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants-defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.2.1979 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 158/78 by which he decreed the suit filed by the original-plaintiff-respondent for mandatory injunction against the present appellants-defendants. 2. It arises in the following circumstances:- One Jeevan Singh (now died) (hereinafter referred to as original plaintiff-respondent) filed a suit against the present appellants-defendants for mandatory injunction in the Court of Munsiff, Udaipur on 4.7.1972 stating inter alia that on 29.6.1971, the appellants-defendants purchased land mentioned in para No. 2 of the plaint measuring 45 x 18 feet from original plaintiff-respondent for the purpose of constructing the shop. It was further stated in the plaint that on the eastern side of that land, there is a lane of 1 feet width and 45 feet length and that lane exclusively belonged to the original plaintiff-respondent and the appellants-defendants had no concern with that lane, when they purchased some portion of the land from the original-plaintiff-respondent. It was further stated in the plaint that the said lane was kept reserved by the original plaintiff-respondent for the purpose of getting the rainy water out through that lane and for other purposes. The further case of the original plaintiff-respondent is that appellants-defendants through pipe had started passing dirty water into that lane. They used to throw garbage in that lane. They had also put a pipe line of 40 feet length and 6 inch width for the purpose of getting out dirty water, stool etc. through that lane. It was further stated in the plaint that on the southern side of that lane, a wall was constructed by the appellants-defendants and that lane was closed, as a result of which, flow of the water stopped. They had also constructed cross by which the open portion of southern side of that lane was covered. It was further stated in the plaint that the construction made by the appellants-defendants was illegal and they had no right to make constructions in that lane. They had also constructed cross by which the open portion of southern side of that lane was covered. It was further stated in the plaint that the construction made by the appellants-defendants was illegal and they had no right to make constructions in that lane. For removal of that construction, the present suit was filed by the original plaintiff-respondent with the prayer that through mandatory injunction, illegal constructions raised by the appellants-defendants especially mentioned in para 8 of the plaint be removed. The suit of the original plaintiff-respondent was contested by the appellants-defendants by filing a written statement on 31.10.1972. It was submitted by the appellants-defendants that whatever was done by them, that was done within their own rights and they had not made any encroachment over the land of the original plaintiff- respondent. It was further submitted by the appellants-defendants that no pipe of 40 feet length was ever put by them and so far as the opening of windows is concerned, for that it was averred in the written statement that they had tried to do so for the purpose of getting air and light. Hence, it was prayed that the suit filed by the original plaintiff-respondent be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Munsiff, Udaipur on 29.8.1974 : " 1- D;k okn&i= ds iSjk ua0 3 esa of.kZr xyh dk oknh rUgk ekfyd gS\ 2- D;k izfroknhx.k o oknh ds chp fcdko ukek dh 'krZ ;g Hkh r; gqbZ Fkh fd izfroknhx.k o oknh dh rjQ dksbZ gdwd fdlh rjQ dk ugha j[ksaxs\ ;fn gkWa rks D;k okn i= ds iSjk ua0 8 esa crk;s x;s gdwd oknh gVokus dk vf/kdkjh gSa\ 3- D;k oknh izfroknhx.k }kjk j[ks x;s gdwdksa dks gVokus ds fy;s ,LvksisM (estopped) gks x;k gS\ 4- D;k oknh ds iSjk ua0 12 esa of.kZr dk;Z ds fy, [kpZ LoLFk izfroknh ls 300@& :i;s ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 5- nknjlh\ " After recording evidence, the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Udaipur through his judgment and decree dated 13.2.1979 decreed the suit of the original plaintiff-respondent for mandatory injunction against the appellants-defendants and ordered that the pipe, which was put by the appellants-defendants be removed and that the lane, which was closed from the southern side, be opened by removing the wall constructed on the southern side and the level of the lane be made lower to the level of the plot of the original plaintiff-respondent and slope of the lane be made towards the southern side of the public way and other illegal constructions in that lane be also removed. The learned Addl. Civil Judge decided the issues in the following manner: (1) That the learned Addl. Civil Judge while deciding issue No. 1 in faovur of the original plaintiff-respondent came to the conclusion that the original plaintiff-respondent was owner of that lane. (2) That while deciding issue No. 2, the learned Addl. Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the appellants-defendants are bound by the terms and conditions of the registered sale deed, and thus, appellants-defendants had no right over that lane. The learned Addl. Civil Judge further came to the conclusion that the appellants-defendants made encroachment as mentioned by the original-plaintiff-respondent in para No. 8 of his plaint and that the fact that appellants-defendants made encroachment over that lane is well proved by the evidence produced on behalf of the original plaintiff-respondent. Thus, issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the original plaintiff-appellant on both two counts. (3) That while deciding issue No. 3, the learned Addl. Civil Judge came to the conclusion that though the suit was filed by the original plaintiff-respondent for mandatory injunction against the appellants-defendants with some delay, but that delay was not fatal and the original plaintiff-respondent was not estopped by such delay. The learned Addl. Civil Judge further came to the conclusion that principle of estoppel was not applicable in the present case against original plaintiff-respondent. Hence, issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the original plaintiff-respondent. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 13.2.1979 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Udaipur, the appellants-defendants preferred first appeal before the learned District Judge, Udaipur and the same was transferred to the learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur and that appeal was numbered as Civil First Appeal No. 4/1979. The learned Addl. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 13.2.1979 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Udaipur, the appellants-defendants preferred first appeal before the learned District Judge, Udaipur and the same was transferred to the learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur and that appeal was numbered as Civil First Appeal No. 4/1979. The learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur through his judgment and decree dated 13.9.1982 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants-defendants and confirmed the findings recorded by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Udaipur in his judgment and decree dated 13.2.1979 on all the issues.Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 13.9.1982 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur, this second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants before this Court. 3. This Court while admitting this second appeal on 12.10.1983 framed the following substantial questions of law for determination by this Court : "(i) Whether the two Courts below were justified in granting a mandatory injunction in respect of removal of pipes in the lane towards the east of the defendant's house, inspite of the fact that the suit filed after a delay of over six months. (ii) Whether the respondent could have been compensated by payment of damages for fixing the pipes in the lane lying towards the east of the defendants' house, in view of the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable delay." 4. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that during the pendency of this second appeal, the original plaintiff-respondent-Jeevan Singh died on 7.4.1987. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record of the case. 6. In this second appeal, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants is that the suit was filed by the original-plaintiff-respondent after six months of the installation of pipes in the lane and, therefore, because of this delay, the suit of the original plaintiff-respondent should not have been decreed. 7. In my considered opinion, this aspect was considered by the learned Addl. Civil Judge while deciding issue No. 3. It was urged before the learned Addl. Civil Judge that since the suit was filed after six months of putting the pipes etc., therefore, the original plaintiff-respondent was estopped from filing the suit and on this ground alone, the suit of the original plaintiff-respondent be dismissed. Civil Judge while deciding issue No. 3. It was urged before the learned Addl. Civil Judge that since the suit was filed after six months of putting the pipes etc., therefore, the original plaintiff-respondent was estopped from filing the suit and on this ground alone, the suit of the original plaintiff-respondent be dismissed. But, that argument was not found favourable with the learned Addl. Civil Judge and the findings of the learned Addl. Civil Judge on issue No. 3 was also affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court (Addl. District Judge, Udaipur) in appeal. 8. Since the suit for mandatory injunction was filed within limitation as prescribed under the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, therefore, in these circumstances, the findings of the learned Addl. Civil Judge on issue No. 3 as confirmed by the learned Addl. District Judge in appeal that in no manner the original plaintiff-respondent was estopped from filing the suit, are liable to be confirmed, as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and in coming to the above conclusion, the Courts below have not committed any error of law or fact. It cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Courts below on issue No. 3 are perverse or based on no evidence or indisregard of evidence or on inadmissible evidence or against the basic principles of law or on the face of it there appears error of law or procedure. 9. For the reasons stated above, the substantial questions framed by this Court on 12.10.1983 are answered in the following manner : Substantial Question Answer (i) Whether the two Courts below were justified in granting a mandatory injunction in respect of removal of pipes in the lane towards the east of the defendant's house, inspite of the fact that the suit was filed after a delay of over six months. This substantial question No. (i) is answered in affirmative and against the appellants-defendants holding that the two Courts below were justified in granting a mandatory injunction in respect of removal of pipes in the lane towards the east of the defendant's house, inspite of the fact that the suit was filed after a delay of over six months. This substantial question No. (i) is answered in affirmative and against the appellants-defendants holding that the two Courts below were justified in granting a mandatory injunction in respect of removal of pipes in the lane towards the east of the defendant's house, inspite of the fact that the suit was filed after a delay of over six months. (ii) Whether the respondent could have been compensated by payment of damages for fixing the pipes in the lane lying towards the east of the defendant's house, in view of the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable delay." (ii)This substantial question No. (ii) is answered in the negative and against the appellants-defendants. 10. In view of the above, the present second appeal filed by the appellants- defendants is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, this second appeal filed by the appellants-defendants is dismissed, after confirming the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******