In a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with unless substantial questions of law are raised, and the plaintiffs must pay the deficit court fee for mandatory injunction.

The present Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 10.02.2023, passed by the I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, in AS.No.212 of 2022, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2013 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in O.S.No.512 of 2010, partly allowing the suit directing the defendants to remove the unauthorized construction within three months from the date of decree and declining to grant the relief of permanent injunction, was confirmed.

2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal, are that one Ankathi Veerabhadraiah is husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. He purchased Plot No.6, admeasuring 246.66 square yards in Sy.No.48(old), corresponding new Sy.No.462 of Waddepally Village.

Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District from its owner and possessor by name Kolpaka Rama Kishna Paramananda Rao under registered sale deed vide Document No.69/2002, dated 29.12.2001 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,23,500/-. Since the date of purchase, the said Veerabhadraiah and plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said Plot.

Accordingly, the said Veerabhadraiah has filed an application before the Municipal Corporation, Warangal, for construction of three portions residential building and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Warangal, has granted permission on 10.3.2006 vide proceedings No.499. Pursuant thereto, he constructed three portions of the house and the same is assessed and allotted H.No.1-9-1214/4 and house taxes are being regularly paid. After the death of the said Veerabhadraiah on 31.07.2007, the plaintiffs succeeded to the said house along with other properties.

3.1. It was further averred that defendant No.2, the husband of defendant No.1, purchased plot No.5 towards southern side of plot No.6 in the name of defendant No.1. After completion of construction of the building, in the month of August, 2007 in the absence of the plaintiffs, the defendants extended portico and constructed a compound wall by occupying a width of 6 inches with the length of 60 feet of the plaintiffs land towards Southern side The plaintiffs demanded the defendants to remove the compound wall and the pillars, but they failed to do so and handover vacant possession to the plaintiffs.

3.2. It was further averred that the defendants started construction of first and second floors without placing protective measures such as keeping tarpaulin covers to avoid falling of the construction material in the house premises of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs requested the defendants to take measures, but they scolded the plaintiffs in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences and further, defendant No.2 taking advantage of his official position had illegally occupied part of plot No.6 towards Southern side to an extent of 6 square yards and constructed compound wall along with portico on the North-West corner of compound wall. Hence, the suit praying the Court to direct the defendants to remove the compound wall and portico raised by them by covering the compound wall towards North-West comer of the suit-schedule property and to hand over vacant possession of suit schedule property and to grant injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and workmen from making any structures by covering the compound wall of suit schedule property and also to award costs of the suit

4. Defendant No.1 filed her written statement and the same has been adopted by defendant No.2 inter alia denying the plaint averments. It was stated that the allegations made in the plaint that in the month of August, 2007, in the absence of the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 extended the portico and constructed a compound wall by occupying a wi