THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 761 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant and respondent No.1 are neighbours in Santhapeta area of Ongole Town. Respondent No.1 was attempting to add second floor to the existing building. The appellant filed O.S.No.629 of 2003 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole for the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain respondent No.1 from making construction of the second floor of the building. He has also claimed the relief of mandatory injunction against the construction already made in the ground and first floors in deviation from the approved plan. The principal contention urged by him was that respondent No.1 did not obtain any permission from Ongole Municipality, respondent No.2 herein, and that after completion of the construction, he submitted an application for according permission. The suit was mainly contested by respondent No.1. He pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of the relief of any declaration. He denied the allegation that the construction made by him is contrary to law. The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment, dated 29.04.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.198 of 2006 in the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Ongole. The appeal was dismissed on 27.09.2010. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri M.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant claimed the relief of mandatory injunction in respect of ground and first floors and perpetual injunction in respect of second floor of the building owned by respondent No.1. He did not claim any rights vis-à-vis the property, but stated that the construction undertaken by respondent No.1 is contrary to law and without any permission. The trial Court framed two issues, namely whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction and whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction. On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 documents were filed. On behalf of respondent No.1, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 documents were filed. In addition to that evidence, the trial Court has taken on record Exs.C1 to C5, compromising of the report of the Commissioner and other connected documents. The suit was dismissed and in the appeal preferred by the appellant, the trial Court framed two points, which are similar to the issues framed by the trial Court. The appeal was also dismissed. As observed earlier, the appellant did not claim any right vis-à-vis the property owned by respondent No.1. His grievance was about the alleged unauthorized construction being carried out by respondent No.1. The trial Court was not inclined to grant the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of second floor on account of the fact that the construction was already made in the second floor much before the suit was filed. So far as the relief of mandatory injunction is concerned, it was not preceded by the one for declaration of rights as to the violations on the part of respondent No.1. It is settled principle of law that the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted, unless any declaratory relief is claimed. The appellant did not seek the relief of declaration as to the nature of rights between himself and respondent No.1. Therefore, even assuming that there were deviations in the ground and first floors of the building, the trial Court was handicapped from granting any relief. This Court does not find any substantial question of law. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:10.10.2011 kdl