P. Subramonian Poti, J.

1.The courts below have concurrently decreed the suit for mandatory injunction compelling the defendant in the suit to fill up a trench that he has dug on the boundary of his property immediately adjoining the plaintiff's property. The dispute concerns the right of lateral support by the adjacent and subjacent soil in regard to the properly of the plaintiff. Admittedly the property belonging to the plaintiff is at a higher level than the property of the defendant. About the actual difference in level there is dispute. The Commissioner has noted that the difference is If feet though the plaintiff's case is that it is very much higher. On the boundary separating the plaintiff's property from the defendant's the plaintiff has paved the mattom (embankment) with laterite stones. It is referred to in the judgment as putting up of a wall I do not think the evidence in the case justifies this description. The embankment itself was formed by raising that portion. Plaintiff's property was originally paddy land, but now only a portion of it is such and the portion adjoining the defendant's is the raised embankment whereon coconut trees stand. Before the suit the