(1.) The matter has now come up for orders and by consent of parties, it is taken up for final disposal and the Counsels have been heard.
(2.) This is a plaintiff's revision against the order dated 20-2-1988 of the lower Appellate court made in Misc. Appeal No. 58 of 1982 By the said order, the lower Appellate court reversed the order of the trial court passed on I.As. I and II in O.S. No. 27 of 1982.
(3.) Plaintiff brought the suit seeking a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the soak pit and mud drain which the plaintiff had put up in the conservancy that exists between the plaintiff's property and the defendant's property. The trial court appointed a Commissioner to take measurements arid to prepare a sketch in addition to the Affidavits of parties for the purpose of disposal of I.As. I and II. The Trial Court found on the basis of the Commissioner's Report that there was a conservancy between the property of the plaintiff and the property of defendant and that the defendant had encroached upon the said conservancy. However, in paragraph 7 of the order, it has discussed the length and breadth of the sites of the plaintiff and the defendant which adjoins in North to South direction forming the middle plots in a private lay-out which is covered by roads on all four side. It has recorded that though the Sale Deeds disclosed purchase of plaintiff and defendant North to South 90' with plaintiff having 50' and the defendant having 40', what is available between the road running on the North and the road running on the South is only 86'.1". Despite that the Trial Court granted the temporary injunction in the following terms :