The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise reached between the parties and reduced into writing as evidenced by Ex.B1 precluded the plaintiffs from prosecuting the suit, and the disputed wall was declared a common wall, with the plaintiffs only entitled to a sum of Rs.1750 as compensation.

The defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiffs have also filed cross objection.

2. The plaintiffs who are the respondents herein filed a suit for declaration of title over the eastern wall of their house described in the plaint schedule and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner demolishing the said eastern wall of the plaintiffs house.

3. The second plaintiff Krishtapa Nayakkar, who is the son of Thayee Ammal, is the husband of the first plaintiff Athilakshmi Ammal. Originally the suit property belonged to Thayee Ammal, the mother of the second plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the said Thayee Ammal, who purchased the suit property under the Registered Sale Deed dated 29.03.1935, settled the same in the year 1966 in favour of her daughter-in-laws one Athilakshmi Ammal, Lakshmi Ammal @ Kullammal and Patchiyammal. The settlement deed was accepted and acted upon.

4. The second plaintiff would claim 2/3 share in the plaint schedule property under two Registered Sale Deeds executed by Kullammal and Patchiyammal in respect of their one-third share each they got under the settlement deed executed by their mother. It is alleged that the defendant, who has no manner of right or title over the suit property is making attempts to encroach upon the plaintiffs property. Hence, the suit for declaration of title over the eastern wall and also for permanent injunction.

5. The defendant has contended in her written statement that the disputed wall which is the western wall of the defendant which belongs to her and the said wall is not the eastern wall of the plaintiffs. It is false to state that the said wall is situated within the limits of the plaintiffs property. In fact, the said wall lies within the limits of the defendants property. Even during the pendency of the suit, in the presence of mediator, it was agreed that the plaintiffs should withdraw the suit. In pursuance of the compromise, the defendant offered a sum of Rs.1750/-for which the plaintiff evaded to pass a receipt. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to continue the suit. With the aforesaid pleadings, the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit.

6. The Trial Court, having observed that neither Exs.A1 to A6 the documents which deal with the property of the plaintiffs nor the property tax receipts Exs.A6 to A10 refer to the right and title of the plaintiffs over the disputed wall and that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the wall which is located on the east of his property is their exclusive wall, dismissed the suit.

7. The first Appellate Court, having adverted to the report of the Advocate Commissioner Ex.C1 and the plan, Ex.C2 in the background of the evidence of the defendant, arrived at a decision that the suit wall is a common wall of both the parties. Therefore, the first Appellate Court, having declared that the disputed wall is a common wall, granted only a relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.

8. The defendant, aggrieved by the Judgment of the first Appellate Court, preferred the present second appeal and the plaintiffs aggrieved by the declaration made by the first Appellate Court that the suit wall is a common wall, chose to file the cross objection.

9. The following substantial question of law was framed for determination at the time of admission of the second appeal:-"Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate court that the suit wall is a common wall is legally sustainable in view of Ex.B1 wherein the respondents conceded the ownership of the appellant regarding the suit wall"

10. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant would submit that none of the documents filed on the side of the plaintiffs/respondents refers to the disputed wall as that of the exclusive wall of the plaintiffs. The wrong measurement given by the Advocate Commissioner was banked on by the first appellate court. It is his further submission that Ex.B1 Com