JUDGMENT T. Sunil Chowdary, J. 1. This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the decree and judgment dated 17.1.2005 in A.S. No. 54 of 2003 on the file of VI Additional District Judge Court, Visakhapatnam, reversing in appeal the decree and judgment dated 03.5.2002 in O.S. No. 2005 of 1999 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner of schedule property admeasuring an extent of 90 Sq. yards, having purchased the same from Poothi Illapu Reddy under registered sale deed dated 23.3.1968. She raised thatched house in the schedule property and subsequently she constructed RCC slabbed house, after obtaining necessary approval from Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. She left 3 feet width lane, on the western side of RCC building, for her exclusive use. Prior to construction of her house, the vendor of defendant constructed RCC slabbed house on the western side of plaintiff's house, without leaving any space. Out of the understanding between plaintiff and the vendor of defendant, she allowed the defendant to whitewash eastern wall of his house. The defendant is well aware that he has no site on the eastern side of his house. The defendant has made efforts to fix up pipes for sullage water and to open sunshades, on the eastern wall of his house, and tried to occupy 3 feet lane of the plaintiff. Taking advantage of interim injunction granted in I.A. No. 669 of 1999 in O.S. No. 2018 of 1999 on 29.6.1999, the defendant highhandedly fixed A.C. box, PVC pipes, old iron clamp and also put one hole on the eastern wall of his house. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove A.C. box, PVC pipes and also to close the hole in the wall within the time fixed by the court. 2. The case of the defendant is that at the time of construction of the house, his vendor left 3 feet lane for repairs etc., on its eastern side. Out of understanding, the vendor of defendant allowed plaintiff to use the said lane to whitewash western wall of plaintiff's house. The defendant purchased the said house in 1998. 2. The case of the defendant is that at the time of construction of the house, his vendor left 3 feet lane for repairs etc., on its eastern side. Out of understanding, the vendor of defendant allowed plaintiff to use the said lane to whitewash western wall of plaintiff's house. The defendant purchased the said house in 1998. When the defendant planned to fix pipes for sullage water in that lane, the plaintiff obstructed. The defendant filed O.S. No. 2018 of 1999 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam for perpetual injunction on 29.6.1999. Along with the suit, he filed an application for interim injunction. But, on the same night, he received a notice in I.A. No. 414 of 1999 in O.S. No. 2005 of 1999 (present suit) granting ex parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff. After hearing both sides, I.A. No. 414 of 1999 filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit. 3. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed in pursuance of the order in I.A. No. 500 of 1999 in O.S. 2005 of 1999. He submitted report on 08.9.1999 categorically mentioning that PVC pipes were fixed on the eastern wall of defendant's house towards the lane. One hole and old iron clamp were found on the said wall. As per the sale deed of the plaintiff, measurements of the schedule site are from East to West 30' and from North to South 27'. However, on ground, measurements are from East to West 29'-9" and from North to South 30'-6". The width of the lane towards south is 1-5" and towards north is 2'-9" and the length is 30'-6". In the plaint schedule, measurements are shown as East to West 30' and North to South 29'. The allegation of plaintiff that defendant highhandedly fixed A.C. box, PVC pipes and old iron clamp is not correct and they were in existence long prior to the institution of the suit. Under the guise of the present suit, the plaintiff wanted to remove them. When the plaintiff does not have right, title and possession of the schedule property, she is not entitled for any relief. 4. In the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws. When the plaintiff does not have right, title and possession of the schedule property, she is not entitled for any relief. 4. In the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. B1 to B3 were marked. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. Being aggrieved by the decree and judgment of trial court, defendant filed the appeal. The first appellate court, after reappreciating the entire material available on record, allowed the appeal setting aside the decree and judgment of trial court. Hence, the plaintiff preferred this second appeal. 5. This second appeal was admitted on 05.1.2005, basing on the following substantial question of law raised in this appeal. Whether the lower appellate court has totally ignored the evidence of P.W. 2, the wife of the late vendor of plaintiff, whose evidence is unimpeached by the defendant regarding the sale of entire vacant site by her husband retaining only the building portion which was ultimately purchased by the defendant in 1998 just before filing of the suit? 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. 7. A person, who approached the court seeking equitable relief of injunction, must place all relevant and material facts. In this case, in order to grant injunction, plaintiff has to establish the following two aspects. (1) She left 3 feet width lane on the west of her house while constructing the same; and (2) the defendant without any manner of right has been trying to encroach 3 feet width lane. 8. Let me consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, on the above aspects, in support of their respective contentions. 9. As seen from the testimony of P.W. 1, she purchased the schedule property from Poothi Illapu Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 23.3.1968 (Ex. A1). Immediately she constructed a thatched house therein. In the year 1981, she constructed a tiled house by leaving 3 feet width site on western side of her site, for construction of latrine. In the year 1986, she converted the roof of the house into RCC slab. 10. A1). Immediately she constructed a thatched house therein. In the year 1981, she constructed a tiled house by leaving 3 feet width site on western side of her site, for construction of latrine. In the year 1986, she converted the roof of the house into RCC slab. 10. As seen from the testimony of D.W. 1, he purchased the house from N.P. Ramachandran (D.W. 3) under registered sale deed dated 24.7.1998 (Ex. B2). A perusal of Ex. B2 reveals that the wife of defendant is the vendee under the sale deed. In the cross examination, D.W. 3 categorically deposed that he sold an extent of 80 Sq.yards along with house to the wife of the defendant under Ex. B2 registered sale deed. His testimony further reveals that himself and his brother purchased the house property from Poothi Illapu Reddy, (vendor of plaintiff) in the year 1970, under registered sale deed dated 01.7.1970 (Ex. A3). The testimony of D.W. 1 and D.W. 3 reveals that the brother of D.W. 3 relinquished his share under relinquishment deed dated 10.10.1980 (Ex. A2) in favour of D.W. 3. 11. As seen from the testimony of P.W. 2, wife of Poothi Illapu Reddy, her husband purchased 228 Sq.yards of site from Poothi Yellapu Reddy and his wife Appalanarasamma in the year 1967. They constructed a house with two rooms in the ground floor and one room in the first floor. After construction of the house, they sold remaining site situated on the east of their house to plaintiff in the year 1968. They also sold house constructed by them to D.W. 3 and his brother in the year 1970. 12. The oral testimony of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, D.W. 1 and D.W. 3 coupled with Exs. A1, A2, A3 and B2 clearly reveals that Poothi Illapu Reddy, the vendor plaintiff and defendant's vendor, purchased the property from Poothi Yellapu Reddy and his wife Appalanarasamma. It is also not in dispute that the house of the defendant is situated on the west of plaintiff's house. In between the houses of plaintiff and defendant, there is a lane of 3' width and 56' length. 13. As per the averments in the plaint, the lane is part and parcel of the site purchased by plaintiff under Ex. A1 sale deed. In Ex. In between the houses of plaintiff and defendant, there is a lane of 3' width and 56' length. 13. As per the averments in the plaint, the lane is part and parcel of the site purchased by plaintiff under Ex. A1 sale deed. In Ex. A1 sale deed, the measurements of the plaintiff's site are shown as East to West 30' and North to South 27'. As per the Advocate Commissioner's report, on the ground the plaintiff has the site with following measurements: East to West 29'-9" and North to South 30'-6". Thus the plaintiff has more site from North to South and less site from East to West. As per the Advocate Commissioner's report, the disputed lane is in addition to the actual site purchased by the plaintiff under Ex. A1. 14. As per the testimony of P.W. 1, as advised by the elders, she got measured her property and the property of the defendant, with the help of surveyor, and found that 3 feet vacant site to the west of her house is within her property. This particular fact was not pleaded in the plaint. Moreover, the report of the Advocate Commissioner negates the contention of the plaintiff that 3 feet width lane is part and parcel of the vacant site purchased by the plaintiff under Ex. Al sale deed. 15. In her evidence, P.W. 1 deposed that at the time of construction of house, her eastern house owner, Endreddi Appalaswamy, gave 1½ feet width site to her for construction of joint wall. In the cross-examination, she categorically deposed that she has no document pertaining 1½ feet width site acquired from Endreddi Appalaswamy. The plaintiff has given a go-by to her contention that 3 feet lane exclusively belongs to her by virtue of Ex. A1 sale deed, and introduced new version that she acquired 1½ width site from Endreddi Appalaswamy. In the cross-examination, she further deposed that Illapu Reddy left extra 3 feet width lane measuring from North to South for plaintiff's enjoyment. At another stage, she admitted that there is no document for the disputed 3 feet width lane. The edifice of civil suit is based on its pleadings. Any amount of oral evidence without pleading is of no use. 16. With regard to boundaries of the properties of plaintiff and defendant, in Ex. A1, western boundary is shown as remaining land of the vendor. In Ex. The edifice of civil suit is based on its pleadings. Any amount of oral evidence without pleading is of no use. 16. With regard to boundaries of the properties of plaintiff and defendant, in Ex. A1, western boundary is shown as remaining land of the vendor. In Ex. A3, eastern boundary is shown as plaintiff's thatched house. In Ex. A2 also eastern' boundary is shown as plaintiff's thatched house. As per the testimony of P.W. 2, wife of original vendor by name Poothi Illapu Reddy, they purchased the site in the year 1967 and they constructed the house. One year thereafter, they sold the vacant site to plaintiff under Ex. A1 sale deed dated 23.3.1968. They sold the house to D.W. 3 and his brother in the year 1970. In the cross-examination she stated that they resided in the house for about 11 months, which is contrary to Ex. B2 sale deed dated 01.7.1970. Exs. A1, A2 and A3 sale deeds are silent as to 3 feet lane in between the houses of plaintiff and defendant. As per the testimony of P.W. 1, she left 3 feet lane while constructing her house in 1981. In Ex. A4 plan dated 24.4.1989 filed by the plaintiff, she has shown open space on the west of ground floor, but its width and length are not mentioned. In Ex. B2, defendant's sale deed, eastern boundary is shown as 3 feet joint lane and thereafter the house of plaintiff. Both parties have not placed any material to establish when the lane came into existence. 17. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is that the first appellate court did not properly appreciate the evidence of P.W. 2. In her chief-examination, P.W. 2 deposed that after purchase of site, they constructed the house. After construction of the house, they sold the remaining site on eastern side to plaintiff in the year 1968. In the cross-examination, she deposed that they constructed the house one year after the execution of Ex. A1 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the chief examination of P.W. 2, there is no whisper that the plaintiff left 3 feet width lane, while constructing thatched house. In the cross examination she deposed that she cannot say the measurements of the lane, but she knows that the existence of lane was mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiff (Ex. A1). In the chief examination of P.W. 2, there is no whisper that the plaintiff left 3 feet width lane, while constructing thatched house. In the cross examination she deposed that she cannot say the measurements of the lane, but she knows that the existence of lane was mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiff (Ex. A1). This part of oral testimony of P.W. 2 is contrary to the recitals of Ex. A1 sale deed. The case of the plaintiff is that she left 3 feet width lane in the year 1981 at the time of constructing tiled house. P.W. 2 is not in a position to give measurements of the site sold to the plaintiff and measurements of the house sold to defendant's vendor. The testimony of P.W. 2 is not inspiring confidence of the court with regard to existence of 3 feet width lane in between the houses and particularly that it belongs to plaintiff. Therefore, much weight cannot be attached to the testimony of P.W. 2. For the above reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff failed to establish her exclusive right over the disputed lane. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff relied on the decisions in P.K.A.B. Co-op. Society v. Government of Palestine AIR 1948 PC 207 (From Palestine), Perraju v. Venkamma AIR 1971 AP 74 and Roy and Co. v. Nani Bala AIR 1979 Cal. 50 . As per the principle enunciated therein, when there is conflict between the area and the boundaries, the description of boundary will prevail. In the instant case, the western boundary of the plaintiff house is shown as remaining land of her vendor. If the western boundary of the plaintiff is shown as 3 feet lane in Ex. A1, then there may be some justification to the claim of the plaintiff. By the time she purchased the vacant site, her vendor has not constructed the house (presently owned by defendant). Therefore, these decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 19. Coming to alleged encroachment of 3 feet width lane by defendant, the contention of the defendant is that his vendor (D.W. 3) left 3 feet width lane while constructing the house. As per the testimony of D.W. 3, the vendor of Ex. B1, they used the lane for effecting repairs and whitewash to the walls of their house. 19. Coming to alleged encroachment of 3 feet width lane by defendant, the contention of the defendant is that his vendor (D.W. 3) left 3 feet width lane while constructing the house. As per the testimony of D.W. 3, the vendor of Ex. B1, they used the lane for effecting repairs and whitewash to the walls of their house. As requested by the plaintiff, he permitted to use eastern side disputed lane. As seen from the testimony of D.W. 1, he fixed A.C. box and pipes to eastern side wall of his house. His testimony further reveals that previously cement pipes were erected to that wall and when they damaged, he fixed the plastic pipes. 20. The crucial question that falls for consideration is whether D.W. 3 has used 3 feet width lane for laying PVC pipes for sullage water and fixing up A.C. box. A careful perusal of the cross examination of P.W. 1 reveals that she requested D.W. 3 to remove sunshades on the eastern wall of his house, when she constructed ground floor and again when she constructed first floor. Her testimony is that D.W. 3 refused to remove the sunshades. Her testimony further reveals that at the time of Advocate Commissioner's visit, A.C. box, the clamps and pipes were fixed by the defendant. The testimony of P.W. 1 clearly manifests that D.W. 3 himself constructed sunshades and laid pipelines facing towards disputed lane. The version of defendant is that when he tried to remove old pipes and fix PVC pipes and A.C. box, plaintiff obstructed for the same. Undisputedly, prior to purchase of the house by the wife of defendant, her vendor (D.W. 3) owned that house from 1970 to 1998 and he had put up cement pipes for sullage water and constructed sunshades. No dispute seems to have been raised by the plaintiff during that period. The wife of defendant purchased the house from D.W. 3 in the year 1998. Surprisingly, within one year the plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant. It appears that the plaintiff, while seeking equitable relief of injunction, did not approach the court with clean hands. 21. The trial court decreed the suit on a premise that 3 feet width lane is part and parcel of the site purchased by the plaintiff under Ex. Al sale deed. It appears that the plaintiff, while seeking equitable relief of injunction, did not approach the court with clean hands. 21. The trial court decreed the suit on a premise that 3 feet width lane is part and parcel of the site purchased by the plaintiff under Ex. Al sale deed. The trial court granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff, basing on the physical features of the Commissioner's report. Absolutely there is no material on record to establish that the defendant tried to encroach the lane. 22. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff failed to establish that the disputed 3 feet width lane is part and parcel of property purchased by her under Ex. Al sale deed, she left the same while constructing RCC slabbed house in 1981 for her exclusive use and the defendant is trying to encroach the said lane. The first appellate court appreciated the facts of the case and law in right perspective and arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff is (sic is not) entitled for equitable relief of injunction. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere with the well considered decree and judgment of the first appellate court. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law in this second appeal, which warrants interference of this court. 23. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Status quo order granted on 28.4.2005 and extended on 05.1.2006 shall stand vacated. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.