( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants. No representation on behalf of the respondent.

( 2 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate judge, Adoni dated 13-12-1988 rendered in a. S. No. 18 of 1984, under which the decree passed by the District Munsif, Adoni in O. S. No. 238 of 1979 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for mandatory injunction for demolishing the structures erected on the wall of the plaintiffs has been modified and compensation to be paid by the defendant no. 1 was directed to be enquired into.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs are the appellants-herein and the defendant No. l is the respondent herein. The plaintiffs filed- the suit O. S. No. 238 Of 1979. The case. ot the plaintiffs is that the plaint -schedule wall was exclusively owned by them and that the defendant No. l without the consent of the plaintiffs raised certain structures on the suit wall and as such mandatory injunction for removal of those structures was sought. The plea of the-defendant No. l was that the wall did not belong exclusively to the plaintiffs and that it was a common wall belonging to the defendant No. l and the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that an earlier suit, filed on the same cause of action, was withdrawn and that the present suit was not maintainable. It is further pleaded that as the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands inasmuch as they permitted the defendant No. l to make construction and in view of this the plaintiffs are not entitled for discretionary relief of mandatory injunction.

( 4 ) IT may be,mentioned that earlier suit in O. S. No. 289 of 1976 was filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendant no. l was seeking to make certain constructions on the wall which exclusively belonged to the plaintiffs and as such they are entitled to perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. l from making any constructions. That suit-was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit as is obvious from the order passed by the Court under Ex. A-13.

( 5 ) AS to the merits of the case, on the basis of evidence adduced by both sides, the trial Court held that the wall in question exclusively belonged to the plaintiffs and that it was not a common wall. The trial court accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction. The trial court however dismissed a further relief sought by the plaintiffs declaring them to be entitled to enter into the premises of the defendant No. l for effecting repairs to the suit AB wall.

( 6 ) THE defendant No. l preferred the appeal A. S. No. 18 of 1984 on the file of the then Subordinate Judge, Adoni. The learned subordinate Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court that the suit AB wall was the exclusive property of the plaintiffs and that it was not a common wall. However, the learned Subordinate Judge set aside the judgment of the trial Court as far as granting the relief of mandatory injunction was concerned. The learned Subordinate judge relied upon the judgment of madras High Court in S. S. V. Krishnan pillai vs. Kilasathammal; S. Palanivelu vs. K. Veradammal and held that the plaintiffs were not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction and that compensation for construction made by the defendant No. l over the plaintiffs wall should be the appropriate relief that can be granted to the plaintiffs. The ground on which the learned subordinate Judge refused to grant the relief of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs is that there were laches and acquiescence on the part of the plaintiffs. It was then observed that presently the plaintiffs factory which the suit AB wall encloses is not working and that as it is a compound wall the construction made by the defendant No. l would not affect the interests of the plaintiffs in any way. The learned Counsel for the appellants points out that the findings recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge himself would show that there was no