1. This is a plaintiff’s second appeal, who, sued for a mandatory injunction for removal of some structure in the form of a bathroom and latrine constructed by a neighbour-defendant, for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the subject land and for further consequential injunction. Suit dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court.

2. Immovable properties have the knack of getting compatible with persons who start enjoying it. A true owner, if abandons the property allowed to be occupied by all and sundry and wakes up like a Rip van winkle long after, and starts howling that his property has been occupied by some stranger, well the stranger will have become the owner by then and he will no more be a stranger because the stranger has acquired familiarity with the property, due to long years of enjoyment and true owner becomes a stranger due to long years of absence from the property! Such is the law of the properties.

3. Plaintiff’s case was that the subject land on which the neighbour had encroached and put up construction, was a part of CTS No.1391-B of Ilakal village adjacent to CTS No.1391-A and 1392, which are all the pro