The main legal point established in the judgment is the confirmation of the plaintiff's lawful possession of the disputed wall and the rejection of the defendant's claims, leading to the grant of permanent and mandatory injunctions in favor of the plaintiff.

( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed in original suit no. 6604 of 1980 on the file of viii additional city civil judge, Bangalore city. They are clubbed and heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) REGULAR first appeal No. 143 of 1983 is filed by the defendant in original suit No. 6604 of 1980 against the judgment and decree allowing the suit.

( 3 ) REGULAR first appeal no. 169 of 1983 is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree in original suit no. 6604 of 1980 confining to those points wherein her prayers for grant of certain reliefs are disallowed. The parties are hereafter referred to by their original ranks in the trial court.

( 4 ) PLAINTIFF Smt. Devikarani filed original suit no. 2584 of 1979 originally in the court of first munsiff at bangalore. After the establishment of the city civil court, the suit came to be numbered as original suit no. 6604 of 1980. Plaintiff prayed for reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions with costs on the following averments: plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the house property with compound wall bearing new no. 55 (old no. 3) in thota devara galli, cottonpet, bangalore, bounded on the east by road, west by defendant's property, north by late adivappa's house and south by road. Plaintiff purchased it from Sri b. s. mariyappa and others under a registered sale deed dated 8-5-1972 and got the khatha changed in her name and has been paying the taxes to the corporation of the city of bangalore. Plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property including the compound wall on the western side. To the west of the plaintiffs property beyond the compound wall is the property bearing old no. 4, owned by the defendant. The defendant has no right, title or interest or possession with regard to the western compound wall of the suit schedule property and he cannot encroach upon the same. Taking advantage of the close proximity of his property and the helplessness of the plaintiff, the defendant tried to encroach upon the western compound wall of the plaint schedule property and interfere with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant stealthily carried out construction work during night times and carved out big square holes in the western compound wall and inserted girders and rafters thereon causing damage by encroaching on the same. He has done the work without obtaining sanctioned plan or licence from the corporation of city of Bangalore or without leaving a minimum of 3 feet space from the plaintiffs property as required by the corporation bye-laws. The protests of the plaintiff and her husband are not heeded by the defendant. The plaintiff therefore prayed for (a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his agents from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the western compound wall of the suit schedule property by encroaching or putting up any construction; (b) a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to pull down and remove the girders and rafters and structures put up by him in the western compound wall with costs.

( 5 ) THE defendant resisted the suit by filing contesting written statement. According to him, the plaintiff is not in possession of the property beyond the boundaries described in the sale deed dated 8-5-1972 under which she purchased the property. The compound wall has never been the part of the plaint schedule property. Property bearing old no. 4 lying to the immediate west of the plaintiffs property has been acquired by the defendant in the year 1971 under sale deed dated 6-10-1971 from Sri mariyappa and others, defendant is the earlier purchaser and the plaintiff is the later purchaser and plaintiff has got to her possession the property of mariyappa which remained in his possession beyond the properties purchased by the defendant from the said mariyappa. Plaintiff got to her possessio