A court can grant an injunction for a lesser extent than the extent claimed by the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff who lost in both the courts is the appellant. At the time of admitting the Second Appeal and while framing the substantial question of law this court observed as follows:-

"The defendant resisted the suit originally contending that he is in possession of the entire suit property, but the courts below found that the defendant is in possession of 30 cents of land out of the suit property. Though before the lower appellate Court the plaintiff claimed that even if the defendant has established his case of possession of 30 cents of land, the plaintiff is entitled to claim injunction for the balance of the suit extent.

..The question is whether it is open to the court to grant an injunction for a lesser extent than the extent claimed by the plaintiff."

2. Originally the suit was for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, servants or agents from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property viz., 1.86 acres of Natham Manthai Poramboke land which forms part of A Schedule Property. Later on, the plaint was amended for the alternative relief of directing the defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of the B Schedule Property, if the defendant is found to be in possession of the same. The plaint goes on the footing that the suit property has been having a sugarcane crushing shed crushing room, crushing machine and a hay rick. In respect of the suit property, already there was a dispute between the plaintiff and one Palaniappa Nadar son of Nachimuthu Nadar residing at Thirumakkudaloor. There is a suit in O.S.No.1129 of 1967 wherein the plaintiff obtained a decree for permanent injunction in respect of the same property on 30.11.1971. In that suit a Commissioner was appointed and he has filed a report with a plan. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property is 1.86 Acres, but in boosthithi the plaintiff has been in actual possession and enjoyment of about 1.63 Acres as observed by the Commissioner in O.S.No. 1129 of 1967. It was submitted that whatever may be the extent mentioned in the B Memo the actual extent within the four boundaries alone will prevail. The plaintiff further accepted that the defendant was attempting effectively to encroach over some portion of the suit property. Hence the suit for injunction.

.3. In the written statement it was contended by the defendant that it is true that Survey No.288/2 measuring an extent of 68.30 acres is a Natham Mandhai Poramboke. But the defendant disputed that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of 1.67 acres of the same. It was the case of the defendant that even prior to 1950 the defendant had encroached the suit survey fully and is residing there by constructing a house and also doing cultivation. Further B Memo also has been issued to the defendant. The property in the possession of the defendant has nothing to with the property in the possession of the plaintiff. Though the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment B Memo has been issued to the extent of 20 cents only. In fact even prior to the encroachment made by the plaintiff when the defendant has already encroached 1.63 acres and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same; the decree in O.S.No. 1 129 of 1967 will not bind the defendant.

.4. In the additional written statement, the defendant contended thus:-

.The site marked by the Commissioner as E has been given by the defendant to the plaintiff for the purpose of putting sugarcane crushing shed and on such permission the plaintiff was in possession of the same. His possession is not as a matter of right. The plaintiff after having known that he has not been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property has come forward with the alternative relief. The suit property belongs to the Government. Except the Government, others have no right to evict the person in possession of the said property. The defendant therefore prays that the suit may be dismissed