T PRASAD Vs. P D PUNNOOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the defendants. Plaintiffs (respondents) filed the suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction on the allegation that the defendants have demolished the western boundary of their property for laying a pathway. Plaintiffs also sought for a mandatory injunction to restore the western boundary in its original condition. The Trial Court decreed the suit and granted permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property or destroying its boundaries or committing any acts of waste therein. They were also directed by a mandatory injunction to restore the western boundary of the plaint schedule property in its original condition. The Sub Judge confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by the defendants.

(2.) In view of Ext. C2(a) survey plan, it was found by the Courts below that no portion of the plaint schedule property is purampokku as contended by the defendants. The Courts held that western boundary wall of the plaint schedule property was demolished at the instance of the defendants on the eve of suit and also after suit. That being a finding of fact cannot be assailed in the Second Appeal. Defendants could not establish any justifiable reason for their acts.

(3.) Contention of the defendants is that as the pathway through plaintiffs' property has become a fait accompli pecuniary compensation rather than mandatory injunction would meet the ends of justice. Defendants have expressed their readiness and willingness to pay compensation to the plaintiffs as determined by this Court. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that pecuniary compensation is no answer to the invasion of plaintiffs' rights in utter disregard of law.