The plaintiff, in a suit for injunction with reference to a partywall, is the appellant in this second appeal. the only live issue for consideration in this second appeal is the plaintiff’s claim to rest rafters of the building, which he proposes to put up, on the said common wall. the plaintiff is the owner of the property (now a vacant land) south of the common wall and the defendants are the owners of the northern property. originally, both the properties belonged to a common owner and in an earlier litigation between the parties, it was held that the wall is a common wall. in fact, it is an admission in the earlier proceedings by the present first defendant that the plaintiff could exercise his mamool rights in the wall. of course, what those mamool rights were, were not defined. in the earlier litigation, the finding, which has become conclusive between the parties, is, that the wall was held in co-ownership. that matter came up to this court in s.a. no. 2415 of 1948. the complaint then was the putting up of two windows in the wall by the present defendants. then this court observed that, on the finding of the courts below which had become final, both the plaintiff