A landowner may be estopped from recovering possession of his property from a trespasser if the landowner has acquiesced in the trespass.

S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C. J. :- The appellant secured from the Government a considerable extent of vacant land measuring about 420 acres in Madukkarai village in Coimbatore District under a lease for mining purposes. In that area there were several survey numbers, of which we are concerned for the present only with S. No. 950/1 measuring an extent of 60 acres. Just south of it, is S. No. 961/5. In the first instance the term of the lease was 30 years from the year 1934 but this period has now been extended by a further period of 20 years. The respondent purchased one acre from out of S. No. 961/5 from its owner sometime during the year 1950. The respondent had to store Chinese crackers in which he had business and for that purpose he built on the land in the year 1950 a magazine, watchman's quarters, etc. The work was commenced that year and was completed in the following year, the respondent having spent nearly Rs. 17000. It is stated that the building put up would now be worth twice the amount spent. It is found that by putting up the buildings he had occupied an extent of 79 cents of land in S. No. 950/1 which is Government's property and in respect of which a mining lease in favour of the appellant subsists. The respondent did not perhaps know at that time that he was trespassing upon Government property. There was every reason for it. The land covered by S. No. 950/1 was fenced and there were boundary stones planted. Both the fence and the boundary stones were outside the limits within which the building was put up. Nearly five years after the buildings were put up, the appellant sent a notice to the respondent complaining that in putting up the buildings the latter had trespassed into a portion of the property leased out to them by the Government. The respondent contested the title of the appellant to that extent of property. The former then instituted a suit out of which this appeal arises in 1958 for recovery of possession of 79 cents of land which had been occupied by the respondent and for a mandatory injunction directing him to remove the superstructures put up thereon. Both the courts below found that the appellant had title to the property and they accordingly passed a decree for possession. The learned appellate judge however realised that the appellant could have discovered the encroachment even at the time of construction of the building by the respondent. But he was of the view that having regard to the nature of the land and the circumstances under which the encroachment was noticed, the appellant could not he held to have acquiesced in the action of the defendant in putting up the buildings. One can easily see from the judgment of the lower appellate court that but for the indifferent attitude adopted by the appellant the respondent could not have been encouraged to put up the buildings. It is not pretended that the appellant was not aware of the buildings coming up. Notwithstanding the view expressed by the appellate judge, one can easily see that there must have been some kind of acquiescence on the part of the appellant while the respondent was putting up his buildings. The respondent feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate court filed a second appeal to this court Veeraswami, J. while affirming the title of the appellant to 79 cents of land held that in the circumstances, it would be unjust to pass a decree for possession of the property. The learned Judge accepted the finding of the lower court that the appellant could, if they had cared, have found out in time that the respondent was trying to encroach upon their property and when they permitted the latter to complete theft construction, it was evident that they were acquiescing in the act of the respondent. He, therefore, considered that this was not a case for directing delivery of possession. Inasmuch as there was a prayer in the plaint for the grant of equitable relief by way of mandatory injunction, the learned Judge held t