This second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, (FTC), Hyderabad in AS.No. 388 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judge confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the II-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in OS.No. 1071 of 1994 and O.S.No. 1663 of 1994.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred by their names.

3. Smt. Parvathi Bai and Smt. Indira Bai filed OS.No. 1071 of 1994 seeking the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of certain constructions which were made. Smt. Sunanda Devi, the first defendant therein while constructing her house deviated from the plan approved by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Smt. Parvathi Bai and Smt. Sunanda Devi are adjacent landowners. The basis for the suit filed by Smt.Parvathi Bai is that by making constructions in deviation of the approved plan of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Smt. Sunanda Devi infringed the ownership as well as the enjoyment rights of Smt. Parvathi Bai while constructing her house. The cross suit, OS.No. 1663 of 1994 was filed by Smt. Sunanda Devi against Smt.Parvathi Bai and Hyderabad Municipal Corporation contending that her construction is by and large as per the prescribed plan which was approved by the Municipal Corporation and she did not infringe any right of Smt. Parvathi Bai and some minor deviations from the approved plan were made as per the advice given by the technical and vastu experts. Therefore, Smt. Sunanda Devi admitted in her pleadings that she made certain deviations.

4. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by Smt.Sunanda Devi and decreed the suit filed by Smt. Parvathi Bai granting temporary injunction directing the removal of illegal and unauthorized constructions made by Smt. Sunanda Devi. The first appellate Court by its common judgment in AS. No. 388 of 1999 and AS.No. 389 of 1999 confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Court in all respects.

5. Feeling aggrieved the legal representatives of Smt. Sunanda Devi who are the appellants 2 to 4 filed the present second appeal against the decree and judgment passed by the learned first appellate court in AS.No. 388 of 1999. In this context, it requires to be noticed that there is no second appeal in so far as the decree and judgment passed in AS.No. 389 of 1999 by the first appellate Court.

6. Heard Sri M.R.K. Choudary, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Sudheer Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt. Manjari S. Ganu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure while disposing of the second appeal will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below if they are based on evidence and not being perverse.

8. In the instant case, apart from the oral and documentary evidence let-in by the parties, an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court and he submitted his report. He was also examined as PW-4 during the trial before the learned trial Court. The documents relating to his report are marked as Exs. C-1 to C-42. None of the parties filed any objections to the Commissioner’s report. It appears that during the pendency of the litigation, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad regularized the constructions made by Smt. Sunanda Devi. The approved plan after regularization by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, dated 02-6-2000 was marked as Ex.B-7 on behalf of Smt. Sunanda Devi as additional evidence in the appeal filed by her.

9. Both the courts below have categorically held that there were deviations and the said deviations are not minor as contended by Smt. Sunanda Devi but they are major deviations, which affect the ownership and enjoyment rights of Smt. Parvathi Bai and Indra Bai. Thus, the findings being arrived at ba