JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal is filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2006 whereby learned Presiding Officer Fast Track Court Mandi HP dismissed the appeal as well as cross objections and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court in civil suit No. 35/2000 title Suraj Parkash Vs. Miss Anjana Mahindru decided on 24.5.2003. Brief facts of the case: 2. Plaintiff Suraj Parkash filed suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction pleaded therein that residential house of plaintiff and other co-sharers is situated upon land comprising khata No. 281 min/275 khatauni No. 504 min khasra No. 2213 measuring 9-90 Sq. meters situated in mohalla lower Samkhetar No. HB 366/3, Mandi Town as per jamabandi for the year 1994-95. It is pleaded that ground floor of the house of plaintiff and other cosharers is used as entrance by plaintiff and other co-sharers. It is further pleaded that a portion of the house of defendant is situated over khasra No.2214. It is further pleaded that wall of the house of plaintiff and defendant is joint wall which is two feet in width. It is further pleaded that defendant intends to demolish her house and intends to raise new construction. It is further pleaded that defendant entered into an agreement with plaintiff on 28.4.2000 that if during the process of demolition of portion of joint wall, entire wall would falls down then defendant would simultaneously construct entire fallen portion of joint wall at her own costs and expenses and would also pay damage to the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that defendant engaged labourers for the demolition of her house including joint wall. It is further pleaded that during the process of demolition of half portion of joint wall entire joint wall fallen. It is further pleaded that defendant be directed to construct entire joint wall at her own costs. Prayer for decree of suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendant pleaded therein that plaintiff persist defendant and her two sisters to sell their entire property which defendant and her sisters inherited from their father but defendant refused to do so. Prayer for decree of suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendant pleaded therein that plaintiff persist defendant and her two sisters to sell their entire property which defendant and her sisters inherited from their father but defendant refused to do so. It is further pleaded that defendant qualified her law course and started practice in court and defendant intends to renovate her parental house which was not in good condition. It is further pleaded that when defendant started renovation work plaintiff resisted renovation work on the pretext of joint wall. It is further pleaded that plaintiff malafide demolished a portion of joint wall. It is further pleaded that plaintiff and his family members did not allow defendant to raise renovation work. It is further pleaded that although defendant sustained loss to the tune of Rs.60000/- (Sixty thousand) for construction of joint wall but defendant filed counter claim to the tune of Rs.30000/- (Thirty thousand) for reconstruction of joint wall as defendant is not in a position to pay court fee. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. As per pleadings of parties learned Trial Court framed following issues on dated 17.8.2001 in civil suit. 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction as prayed? …OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as prayed?. …OPP 3. Whether defendant is entitled to damages by way of counter claim, if so to what extent?. …OPD. 5. Relief. 5. Learned Trial Court decided issue Nos. 1 to 3 in negative. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiff. Learned Trial Court also dismissed counter claim filed by defendant. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court Ms.Anjana Mahindru filed Civil appeal No. 100/2003/114/2005 and Sh Suraj Parkash also filed cross objection No. 2/2003/4/2005. Learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as well as cross objections. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court Ms. Anjana Mahindru filed present RSA. Following substantial question of law framed on 21.11.2006. Whether finding of two courts below regarding plea of appellant-defendant for award of damages by way of counter claim is perverse and is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence?. 8. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the parties at length and also perused entire record carefully. Following substantial question of law framed on 21.11.2006. Whether finding of two courts below regarding plea of appellant-defendant for award of damages by way of counter claim is perverse and is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence?. 8. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the parties at length and also perused entire record carefully. 9. Findings upon point No.1 of substantial question of law with reasons. 9.1 PW1 Suraj Parkash has stated that his house is adjoining to the house of defendant. He has stated that copy of jamabandi for the year 1994-95 is Ext PW1/A. He has stated that between the house of plaintiff and defendant there is common passage and all co-sharers are using the passage. He has stated that there is common wall inter se parties. He has stated that defendant demolished her old house and started construction of new house including common wall of parties. He has stated that when defendant started new construction work of common wall then defendant executed agreement Ext PW1/B with plaintiff. He has stated that defendant did not comply with the terms and conditions of agreement Ext PW1/B relating to reconstruction of common wall. He has stated that photographs of the house are mark-1 to mark-3. He has stated that he had sustained damages due to new construction of defendant. In cross examination he has stated that he does not know that defendant has filed criminal complaint against him and his family members. He has stated that police officials have visited the spot. He has denied suggestion that common wall was demolished by him by way of hammer. He has denied suggestion that he has filed present civil suit in order to pressurize defendant to alienate her share in the suit land. He has stated that defendant has no brother and she has two other sisters. He has stated that revenue department did not visit at the spot. 9.2 PW2 Sunil Kumar has stated that parties are familiar to him and he has also seen suit land. He has stated that defendant started new construction work of new house after demolition of old house and common joint wall. He has stated that compromise Ext PW1/B was executed inter se parties and he has signed the agreement as marginal witness. He has stated that defendant has constructed new house up to three stories. He has stated that defendant started new construction work of new house after demolition of old house and common joint wall. He has stated that compromise Ext PW1/B was executed inter se parties and he has signed the agreement as marginal witness. He has stated that defendant has constructed new house up to three stories. He has stated that defendant has raised new joint wall with bricks. He has stated that defendant Anjana Mahindru did not stop her new construction work. 9.3 DW1 Jiwa Nand has stated that parties are known to him. He has stated that he performed work of construction of new joint wall. He has stated that plaintiff insisted to raise new joint wall with bricks and cement. He has stated that thereafter defendant constructed new joint wall with bricks and cement. He has stated that five pillars were also constructed. He has stated that Bihari labourer was also employed with him. He has stated that defendant paid to him Rs.200/- per day and labourer was paid Rs. 180/- per day by defendant for construction of new joint wall. 9.4 DW2 Smt. Anjana Mahindru has stated that her father, mother and brother have died and she has two sisters. She has stated that plaintiff pressurized her to alienate suit land but she declined the request of plaintiff. She has stated that she started practice in law after leaving service. She has stated that when she started new construction work of her house and joint wall then plaintiff harassed her. She has stated that written agreement dated 28.4.2000 Ext PW1/B was executed inter se parties. She has stated that newly constructed joint wall was damaged by plaintiff. She has stated that she constructed new joint wall twice but plaintiff damaged newly constructed joint wall twice. She has stated that plaintiff requested her to reconstruct joint wall with bricks and cement. She has denied suggestion that wall is joint inter se parties. She has denied suggestion that area of 12 inches joint wall belongs to plaintiff and area of 12 inches joint wall belongs to defendant. She has denied suggestion that she has filed counter claim in order to pressurize plaintiff to withdraw civil suit. 10. Following documentaries evidence filed by parties. (1) Ext PW1/B is the agreement dated 28.4.2000 executed inter se parties relating to reconstruction of joint wall. She has denied suggestion that she has filed counter claim in order to pressurize plaintiff to withdraw civil suit. 10. Following documentaries evidence filed by parties. (1) Ext PW1/B is the agreement dated 28.4.2000 executed inter se parties relating to reconstruction of joint wall. (2) Ext PW1/A is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1994-95 relating to suit land. (3) Mark 1 to mark 3 are the photographs of house. 11. In the present case it is proved on record that written agreement Ext PW1/B placed on record was executed inter se parties on dated 28.4.2000 relating to reconstruction of joint wall. Court has carefully perused written agreement Ext PW1/B placed on record relating to reconstruction of joint wall. Following are the terms and conditions of written agreement Ext PW1/B placed on record. (1) That common wall is 24 inch in width and both parties are using common wall. (2) That Anjana Mahindru has demolished common wall to the extent of 12 inches. (3) That if joint wall which is situated towards plaintiff Suraj Parkash side would demolish during the new construction process of joint wall then Anjana Mahindru would be responsible for re-construction of entire joint wall. (4) That if any damage would cause to the rooms or house of plaintiff during reconstruction process then Anjana Mahindru would be liable to pay damages to plaintiff. (4) That Suraj Parkash plaintiff would not use pillars and beams owned by Anjana Mahindru. (5) That if Suraj Parkash would cause any damage to the pillars and beams of defendant then Suraj Parkash would be liable to compensate Anjana Mahindru. 12. Ms. Anjana Mahindru has filed counter claim to the tune of Rs.30000/- (Thirty thousand) in the present case on the ground that Anjana Mahindru had re-constructed the joint wall after payment of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty thousand) to Monarch Design and Construction Firm. In agreement Ext PW1/B dated 28.4.2000 Ms. Anjana Mahindru has herself admitted the liability that she would re-construct entire joint wall if demolished during the process of reconstruction of some portion of joint wall. It is proved on record that some portion of joint wall was demolished by Ms. Anjana Mahindru herself voluntarily at the first instance. It is well settled law that if some portion of joint wall would be demolished at the first instance then automatically it will create counter impact upon other portions of joint wall. It is proved on record that some portion of joint wall was demolished by Ms. Anjana Mahindru herself voluntarily at the first instance. It is well settled law that if some portion of joint wall would be demolished at the first instance then automatically it will create counter impact upon other portions of joint wall. There is no recital in agreement Ext PW1/B placed on record that what maximum amount would be spent by Anjana Mahindru in the reconstruction of joint wall. In view of the fact that Anjana Mahindru herself took liability of re-construction of joint wall it is not expedient in the ends of justice to grant counter claim to appellant amounting to Rs.30000/- (Thirty thousand) for reconstruction of joint wall. It is well settled law that party cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. See AIR 1993 Apex Court 352 title R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir. No party can accept and reject the same document. A person cannot say at one time that a document is valid and thereby obtain some benefit and then turn round and say same is void. It is held that judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned First Appellate Court are not perverse. It is held that judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court are based upon oral as well as documentaries evidence adduced by parties. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 of substantial question of law is answered in negative. Relief. 13. In view of findings on point No.1 above RSA is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Agreement Ext PW1/B dated 28.4.2000 placed on record executed inter se parties will form part and parcel of decree sheet. File of learned Trial Court and file of learned First Appellate Court along with certified copy of judgment and decree sheet be sent back forthwith. Learned Registrar Judicial will prepare decree sheet in accordance with law forthwith. RSA No. 208 of 2006 is disposed of. Pending applications if any also stands disposed of.