The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 of the C.P.C. is confined to substantial questions of law, prohibiting re-evaluation of evidence or findings of fact.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. The Appellant/Plaintiff filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.') against the Judgment and decree, dated 05.11.1999 passed in A.S.No.131 of 1996 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, 'the 1^st Appellate Court') reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 28.08.1996 passed in O.S. No.1119 of 1995 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Guntur (for short ‘the Trial Court’).

2. The Appellant/Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.1119 of 1995 seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and their men from encroaching into her site beyond joint wall BC on the west or in any way interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of her site ABCD as per plaint plan.

3. It is expedient to refer to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.1119 of 1995 to mitigate confusion and better comprehend the case.

4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

The property BGHD, a 1000 sq. yard site with two terraced buildings, originally belonged to the late Myneni Krupamma, wife of the late M.L.N. John. During her lifetime, Krupamma executed two registered gift deeds (19.3.1974 and 17.4.1974) transferring 400 sq. yards (ABCD) with a terraced building (TUVW) to her eldest son, Jangaiah. She later executed a will (20.10.1978), bequeathing 100 sq. yards (AEFF1) to Jangaiah and 500 sq. yards (F1FGFCBF1), along with a terraced building (PQRS), to her minor grandson, Myneni Saibabu. After Krupamma’s death, Jangaiah retained possession of 400 sq. yards (ABCD) and 100 sq. yards (AEFF1), while Saibabu occupied 500 sq. yards (F1FGHCB). The two properties shared a joint boundary wall along BC, where Jangaiah’s sheds (A1A2A3B) were demolished, and Saibabu’s (BB1B2B3) remain. Upon Jangaiah’s death, his property passed to his wife (the plaintiff) and son, Satish. The plaintiff, along with Satish, sold 100 sq. yards (AEFF1) to Kolla Subbarao in 1993, who is now in possession. The 2^nd defendant, wife of the 1^st defendant, is a tenant under Saibabu. Saibabu sold portions of his property to the 1^st defendant in 1994, including a 226.5 sq. yard site (F1FGG1) and portions of the building. The defendants sought approval to construct excess measurements, which the plaintiff opposed. They have since attempted to encroach on the plaintiff’s property by breaking the boundary wall. The defendants have no right to encroach beyond the BC wall. The 1^st defendant is involved in multiple legal disputes, including one with Subbarao over the 226.5 sq. yard site. Despite mediation efforts, the defendants remain persistent, and the plaintiff faces potential loss and hardship. With documentary proof supporting her claim, the plaintiff seeks relief, as the balance of convenience is in her favour.

5. In the written statement, the defendants denied all the allegations in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff and her family do not own the land up to the BC boundary shown in the plaint plan, nor have they ever been in possession of it. The plaint plan is incorrect. The plaintiff lacks the standing to file the suit. The defendants are submitting a correct plan showing the actual boundary features. The boundary wall along XY, shown in the defendants' plan, was constructed properly, but the plaintiff, her son Satish, and accomplice Kolla Subba Rao dismantled part of it on 26.9.1994. The police are investigating this, and the wall still exists at a reduced height. The plaintiff claims 400 sq. yards of land in the suit, but her title deeds indicate ownership of only 400 sq. yards, with the remaining 100 sq. yards already sold to Kolla Subbarao. The wall along BB3 in the plaint plan does not match the actual construction, and there is no wall from C to North as claimed in the plaint. The defendants' sale deeds wer