( 1 ) HEARD Sri Subrahmanya Narsu/ counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs and mrs. Bhaskara Laxmi, counsel representing the respondent-defendant.

( 2 ) AT the out set the counsel representing the appellants had raised a question relating to the non-consideration of the oral evidence in toto by the appellate court while reversing the judgment and decree of the court of first instance. At paragraph 52 of the appellate courts judgment it was observed as follows:"hence, the oral evidence, in this case, is not helpful to either party, having regard to the foregoing reasoning, observations and findings. "several other questions also have been elaborately argued by both the counsel touching the merits and demerits of the matter. I had gone through the findings recorded by the appellate court and except referring to P. W. 7 the other oral evidence recorded by the court of first instance had been left untouched. No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant made a serious attempt to convince the court that even if the oral evidence available on record is taken into consideration it is not going to alter the situation in any way and hence, the non-consideration of such oral evidence will not vitiate the judgment and decree of the appellate court and hence, the Second appeal is liable to be dismissed. The counsel for the appellants had pointed out the oral evidence, which had been recorded p. Ws. 1 to 7, D. W. 1 and D. W. 2, and also documentary evidence Exs. A-1 and A-2, exs. B-1 to B-3 and also Exs. C-1 to C-6.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel.

( 4 ) THE facts in brief for disposal of the present Second Appeal are as specified hereunder. The appellants-plaintiffs instituted a suit O. S. No. 53 of 1985 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam against the respondent-defendant for a declaration that the plaint schedule wall is a joint wall and that the plaintiffs have got a right in the said wall along with the defendant for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the two windows in the joint wall and if the defendant failed to do it, through court the windows have to be closed and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the said wall by putting holes and windows in the plaint schedule joint party wall. It was pleaded in the plaint as follows:"the plaintiff No. 1 purchased the house site measuring 3-81 metres from east to west and north to south on the eastern side 39. 01 metres and on the western side 37. 19 metres situated in t. S. No. 87/2. In the southern row of mandala Veedhi from Dadisatti rukminamma under a registered sale deed dated 16-8-1976 for a sum of rs. 4,000/- and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant also purchased house- site situated on the eastern side abutting the site purchased by the plaintiff No. l that the same vendor on 16-3-1978 and applied to the municipality for the construction of the house thereon. In the month of december, 1977, the defendant approached plaintiff No. l with a request to construct a wall on the western side of her house as a joint wall in the joint site of the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant in equal extent and not to claim any amount from the first plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff no. 1 agreed and the defendant constructed defendant a joint party wall in the joint site of the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant. Thereafter the defendant entertained evil desire to get unlawful and illegal benefit and wanted to put windows in the joint party wall and the plaintiff No. 1 objected and raised the dispute and put a petition to the municipality on 4-1-1978. The officials of the municipality come and measured the site and directed the defendant not to put windows in the joint party wall. Accordingly, the defendant completed the western joint wall and construction of the house. The western wall of the defendant s house is a joint party wall of the plaintiff No. l and