THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No. 1171 OF 2010 DT.4.2.2011 Between: Musuluri Appala Raju … Appellant And Gurapalli Narasimha Kalidas … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P Rajasekhar Counsel for respondent : None The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No. 1171 of 2010 ORDER: The present Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 10 of 2008 dated 19.1.2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Yallamanchili confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 195 of2003 dated 19.12.2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili. The petitioner herein is plaintiff, who filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the windows erected facing the site of the plaintiff or in the alternative direct the defendant to erect the same at a minimum height of 6 feet so as to prevent the nuisance and privacy of the plaintiff and his family members. Considering the evidence available on record, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, dismissed the suit. As against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 10 of 2008 and on reappreciation of the matter, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court erred in not properly considering the material evidence available on record, particularly the admissions of D.W.1/defendant, while exercising the jurisdiction for grant of mandatory injunction. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material available on record, including the judgment of trial Court as well as the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. The trial Court, while dismissing the suit, observed that the local authority approved the building plan of the defendant and the plaintiff failed to place the material to show that the defendant constructed the building against the approved plan and that there is no evidence to disclose damage and inconvenience caused to the plaintiff. Thus, declined to grant mandatory injunction on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish that there is no violation to his easementary or customary rights or probability of nuisance and inconvenience to the privacy of family members of the plaintiff. The Lower Appellate Court, on reconsideration of the matter by judgment dated 19.1.2009 dismissed the appeal holding that there are no ground to set aside the judgment of the trial Court in O.S. No. 195 of 2003. Thus, both the Courts below, on consideration of the evidence available on record, held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant made construction violating the sanctioned plan causing easementary or customary rights of the plaintiff. In the present second appeal, there is no ground made out by the appellant much less a substantial question of law, warranting interference of this Court and to take a different view from the one arrived at by both the Courts below. The concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below need no interference and the second appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 27.1.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 1171 OF 2010 DATE: 4.2.2011