B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two second appeals have been filed against the common judgment rendered in A. S. Nos. lll and 132 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Second Appeal No. 551 of 1992 arises out of A. S. No. lll of 1988 while second appeal No. 552 of 1992 arises out of A. S. No. 132 of 1988. The appellants are the defendants in O. S. No. 534 of 1981 while they are the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 369 of 1981. The respondent had laid o. S. No. 534 of 1981 for a mandatory injunction to remove the illegal and unauthorised constructions made by demolishing a part of the common wall on the northern side in between the two houses owned by the appellants and the respondent respectively. As a counter blast O. S. No. 369 of 1981 was instituted by the appellants seeking the relief of mandatory injunction against the respondent to dismantle the roof laid by her. Earlier, a suit in O. S. No. 4381 of 1980 was laid by the respondent against the father of the appellants herein and also the Municipal Corporation but the relief became infructuous as in spite of the injunction order granted therein, the appellants went ahead with the impugned constructions and as such, the respondent had chosen to institute a fresh suit in O. S. No. 534 of 1981 seeking a mandatory injunction to restore the common wall as existing on the date of the institution of the suit in O. S. No. 4381 of 1980. While the suit of the respondent in O. S. No. 534 of 1981 was decreed, the suit laid by the appellants in O. S. No. 369 of 1981 was dismissed. The said judgment and decrees rendered by the trial Court were upheld by the lower appellate Court. Hence there is a concurrent finding of fact that the wall in question was the joint property of both the appellants and the respondent and not the exclusive property of the appellants as pleaded by them. This concurrent finding of fact is not impeachable in this second appeal. But Mr. C. P. Sarathy, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that even if the impugned construction was illegal, as no damage was suffered by the respondent, the Courts below erred in exercising the discretionary powers to demolish the staircase whereas the discretion ought to be to preserve the constructions as they are and award damages to the respondent. Mr. Sarathy also relied upon a statement made by the husband of the respondent as P. W. I. The statement runs as follows: "the defendant prior to demolition of wall assured in the presence of d-4 that in case he touches the said wall he will pay Rs. 10,000/ -. " i have considered this statement in a careful manner. This does not amount to admission on the part of the respondent that even if the wall is demolished, she will not claim the restoration of wall but will be satisfied with the payment of damages of Rs. 10,000/ -. The said statement has to be understood in a proper manner and if so understood, it only means that if the roof touches the wall, the appellants had agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/- and the same cannot be stretched to the extent of saying that even if the wall was to be demolished, the respondent or her husband had agreed to be satisfied with the payment of Rs. 10,000/ -. Further, when O. S. No. 4381 of 1980 was filed, the pillars were laid 3 ft. away from the joint wall mentioned above and in that context, the above statement has to be understood. When the appellants were making preparations to lay a roof on the common wall, the respondent had instituted O. S. No. 4381 of 1980 for injunction and on 29-12-1980 the trial Court had granted the interim injunction orders restraining the appellants father from making construction. It is not disputed that as on 29-12-1980, the roof was not laid. What was contended before the Court below was that the appellants were not bound by the said injunction order as their father was not the recorded owner but they ware the owners. They went ahead with the constructions in die

Click Here to Read the rest of this document