A court cannot award compensation to a defendant in the absence of a counterclaim or plea or proof regarding any claim for compensation.

ABDUL HADI, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 206 of 1996 on the file of this Court (which was originally O.S. No. 6725 of 1991 on the file of City Civil Court, Madras) has preferred this Original Side Appeal.

2. The appeal lies in a narrow compass since actually the plaintiff virtually secured the relief prayed for by him in the suit and this appeal has been preferred only against the sum of Rs. 50,000/-directed to be paid by him to the 1st defendant - 1st respondent as “compensation for the illegal acts committed by him” and is also directed against certain observations made by the learned trial Judge while making the abovesaid direction.

3. The main prayer in the suit is for declaring the plaintiffs title to the suit property marked as ‘ABCDEFGIJ’ including the portion coloured in red and shown as ‘CDEF’ in the plaint plan which was the subject matter of O.S. No. 5884 of 1981 (City Civil Court, Madras) and also the portion coloured in blue and marked as ‘ABIJ’ in the plaint plan. There was also a prayer for mandatory injunction, directing the 2nd defendant - 2nd respondent, who is the wife of the 1st respondent to execute and register a rectification deed by showing the correct extent of 1,073 sq. ft. in place of 890 sq. ft. shown in the schedule and plan to the said sale deed dated 4-2-1981. There was also a prayer for permanent injunction, restraining defendants 1 to 4 (defendant No. 4 being the Corporation of Madras) from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the suit property. Appeal against D3 has been actually given up.

4. The above referred to sale deed dated 4-2-1981 is Ex. A3 in favour of the plaintiff executed by the 2nd defendant, based on which the suit has been laid. In the schedule to the said sale deed, what has been sold is described inter alia as premises being part of “Plot No. 7. measuring 890 sq. ft. or thereabouts.”

5. On the footing that the schedule in the said sale deed wrongly described the extent as 890 sq. ft. or thereabouts, but it should be actually 1,073 sq. ft. within the boundaries mentioned therein, the suit was laid. The learned trial Judge has accepted the said claim made by the plaintiff only to the extent of 1027.9 sq. ft. (and not 1,073 sq. ft.) and has granted a decree as follows:—

“The title of the plaintiff over 1027.9 sq. ft. of land more specifically demarcated in the plan appended to this judgment is hereby declared. A copy of the said plan will form part of the decree.”

6. In so far as the relief of permanent injunction is concerned, the same has also been granted as against defendants 1 to 3 with regard to the plot for which the plaintiffs title is declared.

7. The plaintiff accepts the abovesaid decree for declaration and injunction and has not preferred this appeal regarding the same. Likewise, the plaintiff also accepts one other portion of the decree granted, viz., the decree for mandatory injunction, directing the 2nd defendant “to rectify the document by correcting the extent as 1027.9 sq. ft. in the schedule of document in Ex. A3 in the place of 890 sq. ft. or thereabouts.”

8. What he is aggrieved is only with reference to the following direction of the learned trial Judge, which runs as follows:—

“But the plaintiff is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the 1st defendant as compensation for the illegal acts committed by him, within a period of ten days from to-day.”

As already indicated, the plaintiff is also aggrieved by certain observations made by the learned trial Judge, while granting the abovesaid compensation against him.

9. The above referred to O.S. No. 5884 of 1981 was a suit filed by the 1st defendant herein against the plaintiff herein under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on the footing that there was forcible dispossession of the suit property therein (25 10-extent, said to be part of present suit property) by the plaintiff herein. That suit was dismissed in 1985 on the footing that there was no trespass by the plaintiff herein in rela