1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court ( Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda in A.S.No.91/2012) and the trial court (Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakkuda in O.S.No.346/2007), the first defendant came up with this appeal.

2. The dispute is pertaining to lateral support to the registered holding of plaintiff scheduled in the plaint as A schedule, over the property belonged to first and second defendants, the item Nos. 1 and 2 of B schedule. The suit is one for declaration of prescriptive right of easement of lateral support to A schedule property over plaint B schedule, for a prohibitory injunction and a mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to restore the lateral support by constructing a granite wall. It was decreed by the trial court and the first appellate court granting declaration, prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction.

3. The following questions came up for consideration in this appeal:

(1) The construction of a compound wall either through the boundary or inside the boundary separating a servient heritage would amount to 'artificial pressure' as envisaged under Section 15 of the Indian Easement Act and whether it would destruct