The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party seeking mandatory injunction must prove their entitlement to the relief, and failure to prove claims of possession and acquiescence can result in upholding the plaintiff's right to the disputed property.

This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 13. 2007, made in A.S.No.41 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 23. 2006, made in O.S.No.241 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif, Uthagamandalam.

2. The defendants 2 to 7 in the suit O.S.No.241 of 2000, are the appellants in the present second appeal. The plaintiff had filed the suit praying for the relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to remove the illegal construction made by the defendants by encroachment over the plaintiffs property and for costs.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the original suit O.S.No.241 of 2000.

4. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the plaint, are as follows:

The plaintiff is the absolute owner being in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring an extent of 0.03-22/32 acres (1611-1/2 sq.ft) comprised in R.S.No.1719/1 of Ootacamund Town together with the building thereon bearing Door No.100 (New Door No.79) of Ward No.9 and assessment No.4665 of Ootacamund Town Municipality. The plaintiff had purchased the property from one N.Pandurangan. The deceased defendant had purchased the part of the land on the northern side of the plaintiffs property from the Vendor of the plaintiff, namely, N.Pandurangan.

5. The deceased defendant had encroached upon the plaintiffs property on the south west edge measuring about 12 sq.ft. by constructing a 20 feet wall. The said illegal construction was made during the months of May and June 2000. Inspite of the objections raised by the plaintiff, the deceased defendant had hurriedly put up the illegal construction over the plaintiffs property with the wrongful intention of grabbing the said property. Since the defendant N.Nanjappan had died, on 12. 2001, leaving behind the defendants 2 to 7 as his legal heirs, they have been impleaded in the suit as defendants 2 to 7. Since they are in possession and enjoyment of the assets left behind by the deceased N.Nanjappan, the plaintiff had caused a legal notice, dated 7. 2000, calling upon the deceased defendant to demolish the illegal construction measuring about 12 sq. ft. and 20 feet wall constructed over the plaintiffs land. The deceased defendant instead of complying with the demand made by the plaintiff, had issued a reply notice denying that he had encroached upon the plaintiffs property. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.241 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthagamandalam.

6. In the written statement filed by the deceased defendant, it has been stated that the allegations made by the plaintiff in the suit are false, frivolous and vexatious and therefore, the suit is not maintainable, either on facts or in law.

7. It has also been stated that the defendant is not aware of the extent of the property in the possession of the plaintiff in R.S.No.1719/1 of Ootacamund Town. The defendant had purchased the extent of 752-1/2 sq. ft. of land in R.S.No.1719/1 of Ootacamund Town together with the building thereon bearing door No.99 of Ootacamund Municipality, under a registered sale deed, dated 11. 1997. The said sale deed had been registered as document No.826/97 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ootacamund. The said land had been purchased from P.Sowmya @ P.Lakshmi daughter of N.Pandurangan. After the purchase, the defendant had renovated the old building in the said property which had existed in the said property. However, the defendant has denied the allegation that he had encroached upon the property belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant has put up a construction on his land and there is no encroachment whatsoever by the defendant on the property said to be belonging to the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and therefore, it is to be dismissed with costs.

8. Bas