JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, the learned Counsel representing Sri Krishna Murthy Nayani, Counsel for appellant/defendant and Sri C. C.S. Sastry, learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. 2. On 20.2.1996, this Court made the following order: "Admit. The substantial questions of law to be decided in the Appeal are raised in Ground Nos.5, 6 and 8 of Additional Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal." The said Grounds read as hereunder : The learned Additional District Judge should have seen that absence of the description of the joint wall in the defendant's sale deed does not take away the right acquired by use of joint wall which could be conclusively deduced from the Commissioner's report. The lower appellate Court ought to have seen that no injunction can be granted when there is no interference as found by the Commissioner. The lower appellate Court should have seen that even assuming that there was a drain and that it was removed by the defendant no relief could be granted without a prayer for a mandatory injunction. 3. Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/ defendant had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the findings recorded by the appellate Court and would maintain that the appellate Court totally erred in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction and the Court of first instance recorded the evidence of PW.1 and DW.1, marked Exs.A.1 to A.11 and after recording findings came to the conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and accordingly dismissed the suit. The Counsel also would maintain that the same was carried by way of Appeal 'AS No.57/92 on the file of Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and the learned Additional District Judge without appreciating the evidence available on record in proper perspective reversed the Decree and Judgment of the Court of first instance and allowed the appeal decreeing the suit. The learned Counsel pointed out to relevant portions of the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and would maintain that when the report of the Commissioner is clear and categorical and clear findings had been recorded by the Court of first instance, the appellate Court reversing the same especially in the light of the recitals in EX.A.1 dated 11.4.1949 cannot be sustained. The Counsel also had further pointed out to the oral and documentary evidence and certain of the admissions made by PW.1 and the evidence of DW.1 as well and would maintain that in the light of the substantial questions of law which had been pointed out, the second appeal to be allowed. 4. On the contrary, Sri C.C.C. Sastry, the learned Counsel representing the respondents/plaintiffs would maintain that the evidence of PW.1 and DW.1 is available on record and clear positive findings had been recorded by the appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The Counsel also pointed out to the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the report of the Commissioner and would maintain that the clear recitals available in EX.A.1 coupled with the recitals in Ex.A.11 had been considered at length by the appellate Court and a positive finding had been recorded that the Court of first instance totally erred in dismissing the suit basing on the report of the Commissioner in the light of the documentary evidence specified above and in the light of the same, the learned Counsel would maintain that inasmuch as no substantial question of law as such is involved in the second appeal, in the light of the limitations imposed on this Court in relation to reappreciation of the evidence under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the second appeal deserves a dismissal. 5. Heard the Counsel. 6. The parties hereinafter, for the purpose of convenience, would be referred to as "plaintiffs" and "defendant". as shown in O.S. No.528/85 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Eluru. 7. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents etc., from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs ' Southern and Western side walls shown in plaint plan marked as AB and EF and for costs of the suit. as shown in O.S. No.528/85 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Eluru. 7. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents etc., from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs ' Southern and Western side walls shown in plaint plan marked as AB and EF and for costs of the suit. It was pleaded in the· plaint as hereunder : The plaintiffs are the owners and absolutely entitled to shop bearing Door No.3A-I-59 in T.S. No.342, situate in Main Bazar, Eluru. The said property was purchased by late Peruri Satyanarayana, father of plaintiffs 1 to 4 and husband of 5th plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 11.4.1949 from Smt. Fyjulmisa Begum alias Ahammadi Begam. The Southern and Western side walls of the shop are exclusively belonging to the plaintiffs. The said late Peruri Satyanarayana had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property without any objection or interruption from anybody at any time till his death a year ago. After the death of late Satyanarayana, the property devolved upon his four sons and wife, the plaintiffs, per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act and they had been in· possession and enjoyment of the same and paying the taxes thereon. It was further stated that it Southern wall. Thereupon, the plaintiffs got sent a telegraphic notice through their Advocate calling upon the defendant to stop any such encroachment of the Southern side wall i.e., resting the cement beams and slab. The defendant is also making attempts to rest the slab on the Western wall of the plaintiffs. The defendant received the said notice and sent a reply with a false denial of the allegations contained in the telegraphic notice. The plaintiffs had been in undisputed and uninterrupted peaceful possession and enjoyment of their shop including the above said walls to the knowledge of the defendant and had also perfected their right by open, continuous and adverse possession for over 36 years. The defendant began openly proclaiming that he will rest the cement beams as well as the slab on the Southern and Western walls that belong to the plaintiffs encroaching upon the same. The defendant is a very rich and influential person. The defendant began openly proclaiming that he will rest the cement beams as well as the slab on the Southern and Western walls that belong to the plaintiffs encroaching upon the same. The defendant is a very rich and influential person. The plaintiffs apprehend that the defendant at any moment is likely to take the law into his hands and will resort to force and violence and encroach upon the plaintiffs Western and Southern walls to rest the beams and slab on his shopping construction. It is absolutely necessary to take adequate and appropriate steps to prevent the unlawful and high handed acts of the defendant and for the protection of the plaintiffs right and enjoyment and hence the plaintiffs filed the suit' for permanent injunction. 8. The defendant filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs are bound to establish that they are the owners and absolutely entitled to the shop bearing Door No.3A-I-59 in T.S. No.342 in the main bazaar, Eluru as per the registered sale deed dated 11.4.1999 executed by Smt. Fyzunnisa Begum alias Ahammadi Begum and that the Southern and Western side walls of the shop covered by the said sale deed exclusively belong to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs should also prove that late Satyanarayana had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property without any objection or interruption from anybody at any time till his death a year before the suit and that after his death, the property evolved upon all the plaintiffs and that they had been enjoying the same in the manner alleged. It was denied that the recitals in the said sale deed clearly mention that the Southern side wall and the Western side wall exclusively belong to the plaintiffs. The defendant is not aware of any such recitals having been made in the sale deed of the plaintiffs. Even if any such recitals had been made, they are not valid and binding on the defendant the same being inter-parties. The plan filed along with the plaint does not correctly show the features and the same is not correctly and properly drawn up. The defendant purchased the site, house and shop to the West and South of the plaintiffs property and he removed the old structures and constructed a pucca building. The plan filed along with the plaint does not correctly show the features and the same is not correctly and properly drawn up. The defendant purchased the site, house and shop to the West and South of the plaintiffs property and he removed the old structures and constructed a pucca building. The defendant, his wife and sons purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 9.1.1985 from Smt. Fatimunnisa alias Dildar Begum. The allegations that the defendant had been making unlawful attempts to rest the beams and slab on the Southern wall exclusively belonging to the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs raised a dispute through elders and requested the defendant not to rest either concrete beams or the slab on , the Southern wall are all false and trumped up for the purposes of the suit. To the plaintiffs telegraphic notice, the defendant sent a telegraphic reply through his Advocate and followed by a detailed reply dated 16.12.1985 through his Advocate. The defendant was also making attempts to rest the slab on the Western wall of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs grievance is utterly unfounded and has no legal or factual basis. No particulars of the so-called encroachment are sought to be furnished in the plaint except making vague and unfounded I allegations out of sheer spite and jealousy. There is no encroachment at all either on the Southern side or the Western side of the plaintiffs property or in respect of the Southern side and Western walls over which the plaintiffs claim absolute and exclusive ownership without any basis. It was further pleaded that it is false and untenable that the plaintiffs had been in undisputed and uninterrupted peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property including the Southern and Western walls to the knowledge of the defendant and that they had perfected their right to open, continuous and adverse possession for over 36 years. There is absolutely no justification for any apprehension on the part of the plaintiffs. The defendant is a respectable businessman with decent reputation and he had always been a law-abiding citizen. False and pose fully vague allegations had been made without any regard for truth, to obtain ex parte orders of injunction and to create a sensation. There is no encroachment or even attempted encroachment or any threatened invasion of the plaintiffs rights and so the suit is utterly unsustainable. False and pose fully vague allegations had been made without any regard for truth, to obtain ex parte orders of injunction and to create a sensation. There is no encroachment or even attempted encroachment or any threatened invasion of the plaintiffs rights and so the suit is utterly unsustainable. The plaintiffs took out a commission in IA No.2680/85. The learned Commissioner appointed by the Court inspected the building and the constructions in the defendant's site and submitted his report dated 18.2.1986 with a sketch. The report of the learned Commissioner exposes the falsity of the plaintiffs assertions. The Commissioner in Para 6 of his report noted that the wooden beams of the defendant's old building used to be resting on the Southern' wall and into the wall by 5". The feature itself is sufficient to establish that the Southern wall was joint and did not exclusively belong to the plaintiffs. The Commissioner also noted the existence of the holes which were holding the wooden beams of the defendant's old building. He also found that neither the beams nor the terrace was resting on the walls. The Commissioner further noted that the terrace of the defendant's new building is not resting on the walls of the plaintiffs anywhere. The photos filed along with the plaint do not correctly show the situation and they are not helpful at all. There was never any drain in existence at any time as claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have no prima facie case or balance of convenience. So they are not entitled to the permanent injunction prayed for which is an equitable relief and the requirements of law are not satisfied for granting the same. The plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and there is absolutely no cause of action for the suit. The defendant constructed his building within his own site and there is no encroachment or infringement or violation of the plaintiffs rights and hence the suit may be dismissed. 9. On the strength of these pleadings, the following issues were settled before the Court of first instance : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? 2. To what relief? 10. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked. The defendant examined himself as DW.1. 9. On the strength of these pleadings, the following issues were settled before the Court of first instance : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? 2. To what relief? 10. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked. The defendant examined himself as DW.1. The Court of first instance, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence relying on the report of the Commissioner heavily - came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The matter was carried by way of Appeal A.S. No.57/92 on the file of Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. The appellate Court at Para 10 framed the Point for consideration, proceeded to discuss the oral and documentary evidence available on record at Paras 11 to 20 and ultimately allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal had been preferred. 11. PW.1 is the 1st plaintiff and Ex.A.1 is the registered sale deed under which his father purchased the shop. Ex.A.2 is the sketch, Ex.A.3 is the telegram notice, Ex.A.4 postal receipt, Exs.A.6 to A.9 are the photographs. This witness deposed that there was a drainage on the Southern wall to drain the rain water from the roof of his shop and the defendant removed the drainage without their permission or knowledge. This witness also deposed that the first floor of the defendant is extending by 6 inches into his shop and it causes . obstacle to raise their walls and the falling of the rain water as well. PW.1 also deposed about the purchase made by the defendant and further specifically deposed that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant never used the walls in question. In the cross-examination, several suggestions put this witness also had been denied. Ex.A.10 is the reply registered notice. Ex.A.11 is the registration extract of the sale deed executed by Fazunnisa Begum in favour of Koda Kanaka Subrahmanyacharyulu and others dated 9.1.1985. Certain submissions were made that inasmuch as Ex.A.11 had been marked even by the plaintiffs, the defendant had not chosen to mark any title deed whatsoever. DW.1 no doubt deposed that the slab or beams of his house never rested on the Southern and Western walls of the house of PW.1 and in fact there was a gap of 3 inches. DW.1 no doubt deposed that the slab or beams of his house never rested on the Southern and Western walls of the house of PW.1 and in fact there was a gap of 3 inches. This witness also admitted in the cross-examination that he has no site on the North and West beyond the walls of his house. The EF wall in the Commissioner's plan belongs to the plaintiffs. Abutting the plaintiffs EF wall he raised a wall on the Western side and there is no mention about his joint right in AE wall in Ex.A1. This witness also made an admission to the effect that it is true that he had stated in his reply that he had nothing to do with the Southern wall of the plaintiffs and he never touched the Southern wall. The appellate Court in fact had referred to the report of the Commissioner and also the findings recorded by the Court of first instance in the light of the report of the Commissioner and also further discussed the recitals in EX.A.I and also the recitals in Ex.A.11 and coupled with these recitals and also the clear evidence of P.W.I came to the conclusion that the Court of first instance totally erred in dismissing the suit on the strength of the report of the Commissioner. On a careful reading of the findings recorded by both the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court, though it is a reversing judgment, the appellate Court had taken pains to take into consideration the recitals of both the title deeds, EX.A.I and also Ex.A.11, and also appreciated the report of the Commissioner and came to the conclusion that in the light of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also in the light of the evidence of DW.1 the findings of the Court of first instance being not sustainable ultimately reversed the decree and judgment of the Court of first instance. Even otherwise, this Court is thronging satisfied that the findings recorded by the appellate Court predominantly being factual findings and the appellate Court being the final Court of fact, normally such findings not to be interfered in a second appeal unless such findings are shown to be either perverse or based on no evidence at all or totally improper appreciation of such oral and documentary evidence. The findings recorded by the appellate Court do not suffer from any such legal infirmity and hence the second appeal being devoid of merit, the same shall stand dismissed. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties to bear their own costs.