Prohibiting or mandatory injunction is purely on equitable relief.

This second appeal has come after remand by the Supreme Court. The defendants are the appellants. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, possession, mandatory injunction and costs. The suit property is the northern east-west wall in the A-Schedule property and the two feet space on the northern side of the said wall.

2. The plaintiff claimed that the B-Schedule property is his exclusive property. The A­-Schedule property was purchased by him with the wall and about four years back, when the plaintiff and his family members were away from the property, the defendants had stealth­ily put up hookstones on the northern side of the east-west wall of the plaintiff and have put up asbestos thalvaram sloping towards north. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to the two feet north-south space that has been left by his predecessors-in-title for tile purpose of maintaining the northern side of the AB wall. The defendants have no right to put up any construction much less to put up hookstones in AB wall before the suit was filed.

3. The defendants/appellants resisted the suit stating that the North-East wall is a common wall belonging to the plaintiff's vendor and it is incorrect to state that the defendants had put up hookstones only about four years ago. Hookstones have been in existence from the time of construction 'of the suit-wall and a roofing has been put up about 30 years ago. The roof was a thatched one and defendants have prescribed right over the suit wall and it is not the exclusive wall of the plaintiff. That portion to tile north of the wall has been let out to various persons and even assuming without admitting the same, the defendants were permitted to put up hookstones by the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title and the hookstones were permanent in character and, therefore, the plaintiff's prayer for tile relief of mandatory 711 injunction cannot be grant ed, since it is barred by time.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Defendants 2 to 4 preferred the first appeal. The appellate Court found that the suit wall is the plaintiff's property entirely, but he is not entitled to any space on the northern side of the suit wall and the hookstones are not constructions of permanent character and the licence can be revoked and, therefore, the decree of the judgment of the Lower Court was partly modified.

5. Against that, the appellants preferred the present second appeal. On 11.8.1998, the second appeal was partly allowed, the mandatory injunction granted by the lower appellate Court was set aside and the plaintiff was held entitled to be compensated by payment of Rs.15,000. The mandatory injunction was restricted to the removal of three hookstones to the eastern side of the construction.

6. Against that the respondents herein preferred S.L.P. The Supreme Court granted leave and allowed C.A.No.43 of 2000, since the Substantial question of law was not taken note of and it was decided as if it were as first appeal. Tile matter was remanded to this Court and, therefore, the second appeal was heard on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that Sec.60 of the Easement Act will not apply to the case when construc­tion with hookstones of permanent char­acter had been put up on the suit wall?"

7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the cross-objection filed by the respondent is not maintainable since the finding regarding tile two feet space has become final; the appellate Court as well as the trial Court failed to see that the Suit wall was a common wall; the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted because tile plaintiff came to Court with a delay and the licence granted to the defendants to put up the hooks was an irrevo­cable licence.

8. No substantial question of law was framed by the respondents in the cross-objection, when it was filed.

9. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants raise