The defendant, in this second appeal, has challenged the Judgment and decree dated 26.10.1999 made in A.S.No.43 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.04.1999 made in O.S.No.182 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

4. In brief, according to the plaintiff's case, the disputed AB Wall is situated on the Southern side of the plaintiff's property and in the disputed Wall, the plaintiff has common 1/2 share and the plaintiff has purchased her property under the sale deed dated 11.06.1973 and the defendant, taking advantage of the dismissal of Interlocutory application, has demolished the common wall and put up construction in the property. The defendant's property is situated to the South of the common wall and the defendant is not entitled to demolish the common wall and further, the defendant is also attempting to put bore well in his property so as to cause damage to the common wall and in such circumstances, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs i.e. to prevent the defendant from demolishing the common wall by erecting a bore well and also to restore the demolished wall to its original shape.

5. The case of the defendant, in brief, is that it is false to state that the plaintiff has title to the common wall situated on the Southern side of the plaintiff's property. The defendant has purchased his property by virtue of the sale deed dated 21.09.1973 and only after the disposal of the interlocutory application, the defendant has demolished the wall and put up the terraced house in his property and also erected a bore well and hence, the suit is not maintainable. The defendant has exclusive title to the disputed wall by virtue of his sale deed and the suit laid by the plaintiff without seeking the relief of declaration is not maintainable and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW1 has been examined and Exs.A1 to 6 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to 4 were marked. Exs.C1 & 2 were also marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the trial court was pleased to grant the relief of mandatory injunction sought for by the plaintiff. In the first appeal preferred by the defendant, the judgment and decree of the trial court was confirmed and resultantly, the first appeal has been dismissed. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

8. At the time of the admission of the second appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration;

"Whether a decree for mandatory injunction should be granted, when the plaintiff can be adequately compensated by award of damages?"

9. The plaintiff claims title to her property by virtue of the sale deed dated 11.06.1973 marked as Ex.A1. The defendant claims title to his property by virtue of the sale deed dated 21.09.1973 marked as Ex.B1. As rightly found by the Courts below, on a perusal of Ex.A1, it is found that under the said document, the plaintiff had purchased common 1/2 share in the disputed wall situated on the Southern side of her property. The clear recitals, with reference to the same, are reflected in Ex.A1. Similarly, it is found from Ex.B1 that the defendant had also been granted common 1/2 share in the disputed wall, which is situated to the Northern side of the defendant's property and the recitals in Ex.B1 clearly reflect the above position. That apart, the defendant examined as DW1 has admitted clearly that when he had purchased the property from Saraswathy, he knew fully well that only common 1/2 right had been granted in the disputed wall and further, he has also admitted that the other remaining common 1/2 rig