The plaintiff must comply with Section 91(1)(b) C.P.C. and have a specific plea of demand regarding the encroachment to be entitled to the remedy of mandatory injunction.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.08.1994 made in A.S.No.170 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.01.1993 made in O.S.No.475 of 1991 passed by the Principal District Munsif of Cuddalore, the plaintiff has come up before this Court with the present appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff, Thambaiya Naidu as put forth before the Trial Court is as follows :

The suit property described in the plaint is situated in Nethaji Road, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore-1 and it is classified as Poramboke land, which is marked as ABCD in the plan appended to the plaint. The suit property is on the southern side of T.S.No.1687/3, which belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is running a provision shop therein. The suit property belongs to defendants 2 and 3. It was used as a lane to go into Anna Market. While so, for the last two years, the fourth defendant has encroached upon the suit property, put up a temporary hut and has completely closed the lane preventing ingress and egress of the people into Anna Market. The plaintiff has protested the attitude of the fourth defendant as the encroachment has become a nuisance to him. The fourth defendant has obstructed light and air of the plaintiff through his window and ventilator on the western side of the plaintiffs house. The rain water of the plaintiffs house will drain on the southern side of the property. The occupation of the fourth defendant in the suit property has affected the right of way to market. Even though, the matter was reported to the third defendant, the Commissioner of Cuddalore Municipality, he had not taken any steps against the fourth defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 2 and 3 to remove the hut put up by the 4th defendant in the suit property marked as ABCD in the plaint plan.

3. The case of the defendants as stated in the Written Statement is, as under:

(i) The first and second defendants denied that the suit property was used as a lane with the knowledge of the Government or that anybody has got a right of easement over it. In fact, the plaintiff himself has not pleaded any such legal right and at any rate, it was not used as such with any knowledge or consent of the Government Officials. Being poramboke property, people might have been unauthorisedly using it without any right and the plaintiff may be one such person. According to them, the fourth defendant had encroached upon it two years ago as stated in the plaint and put up a temporary shed thereon. But, he does not cause prevention of ingress and egress of anyone to Anna Market, which would give a cause of action to file a suit against the Government for mandatory injunction as in this case. The suit is also not filed as a representative suit on behalf of all such people and the defendants 1 and 2 are at a loss to understand who the alleged people are. The alleged nuisance caused to the plaintiff, even if any, cannot give a cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit, because he has no legal right as such. The plaintiff must or might not be prejudiced by any such encroachment in the matter of his getting light and air but he cannot feel aggrieved against the Government on that basis. The said encroachers window and ventilator on the western side of the plaintiffs house caused any such nuisance to the plaintiff so as to give a cause of action to him to file this court. The rain water of the plaintiffs house falling on the southern side of the suit property is another encroachment by the plaintiff which is objectionable by the Government as and when an occupation arises for that. The plaintiff himself is committing an illegal act admittedly. So the plaintiff is not entitled to file this suit for any relief, even if the encroacher has caused any prejudice to him in his unauthorised use of a piece of poramboke property.

(ii) The third defendant has d