Based on the provided legal document, the court's analysis indicates that in cases involving joint property and structures erected by co-owners without mutual consent, the remedy by way of a mandatory injunction is generally not available unless certain conditions are met. Specifically, the courts emphasize that the plaintiff must prove substantial injury caused by the construction and demonstrate that they took reasonable steps in a timely manner to prevent such construction (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the courts have consistently held that a co-owner's unilateral action to build on joint property does not automatically entitle other co-owners to seek demolition unless they can establish that such construction causes significant injury that cannot be adequately remedied through other legal means, such as partition (!) (!) . The courts also recognize that equitable considerations play a vital role and that interference should be limited to cases where substantial injury is evident and timely objection was made (!) .

In this case, the courts found that the plaintiffs failed to establish substantial injury and that the defendants had been in possession of the property for a long period, with no evidence of protest or objection at the relevant time. Therefore, the courts exercised their discretion to deny the injunction, emphasizing that demolition or joint possession orders are only justified in exceptional circumstances where injury cannot be remedied otherwise (!) (!) .

The overall judicial consensus is that the remedy of mandatory injunction should not be granted lightly in joint property disputes involving structures erected by co-owners, especially when no substantial injury has been demonstrated, and the construction was carried out in good faith or in possession for a significant period (!) (!) .

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that such remedies are not generally available unless the claimant can prove substantial injury and that appropriate timely objections were made, aligning with the principles of equity and law governing joint property rights (!) (!) .