MODI, J.—The finding of both the lower courts is that the defendant-respondent has encroached upon the plaintiffs land in a triangular shape with nine inches base on the northern side by constructing a wall. The trial court was of the opinion that this encroachment took place because the plaintiff did not construct his boundary wall after full measurements. It therefore held that it was not a case which called for a mandatory injunction but was one where a sum of Rs. 50/- as compensation would suffice. The above finding was affirmed by the appellate court. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court, the plaintiff has filed this appeal and the defendant his filed cross-objection.

2. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that in cases of encroachment mere award of compensation is not an appropriate remedy as it is a continuing trespass on the plaintiffs property. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the defendant that this is a fit case for compensation and not for grant of a mandatory injunction. His further contention is that the amount of compensation awarded by the courts below is excessive.

3. The question for decision is, whethe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document