Samudrala Govindarajulu, J.

1. The second defendant-cum-counter claimant who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below, is the appellant herein. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in the trial Court for mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant to remove unauthorized construction on western side of the suit property (ie) room in ground floor, sajja of the 1st1stground floor, centring of the sajja of the floor and to direct the defendant/Municipal corporation of Hyderabad to remove the same to bring the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan, in the event of 2nd defendant not removing the unauthorized construction and also for consequential injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from carrying on construction covering open space on the western side of the suit property, which may affect easementary rights of the plaintiff for free air and light through the windows to the plaintiff’s house. The plaintiff is owner of house, which is located to the east of the 1st defendant’s house. It is contention of the plaintiff that by virtue of the impugned constructions undertaken by the 1st defendant contrary to the municipal sanctioned plan, the plainti