( 1 ) THE unsuccessful defendant at the appeal state is the appellant herein. He filed a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the appellant from constructing ovens of XY of the plaint schedule land and also for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from constructing the chimney along the Western place of AB common wall. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the appellate Court, while conforming the decree of the trial Court, in respect of construction of ovens at XY place of the plaint schedule land, directed the appellant to close the holes in the chimney towards the East by way of mandatory injunction and if he fails to do so the respondent-plaintiff be at liberty to get it done through Court and recover the costs thereof, challenging this part of the decree, the defendant filed this appeal. Against the concurrent decree of both the Courts refused to grant injunction in respect of the first part of the relief the respondent filed cross-objections. Thus this matter.

( 2 ) IN the appeal, Sri Bali Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that without any proof of an injury or discomfort to the plaintiff on account of emanation of the