RADHAKISHAN Vs. DIGAMBER JAIN MANDIR, GUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs filed a suit, alleging that their land, measuring 36 ft. by 20 ft. has been encroached upon by the Defendants (Shri Digambar Jain Temple, Guna and its two managers) and prayed that the wall that has been constructed on their land should be demolished and the Defendants should be restrained by an injunction not to encroach upon the land of the Plaintiffs in the future. The trial Court after recording the evidence held that the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the land in dispute was theirs. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Guna, held that there was encroachment by the Defendants to the extent of 36 ft. by 11 inches. It, however, did not grant an injunction but in its stead passed a decree for Rs. 110/ - by way of compensation. Aggrieved by this the plain -tiffs have filed an appeal No. 69 of 1959, praying that the Plaintiffs' suit be decreed according to the prayer in the plaint; the Defendants have also filed cross -objections, contending that the dis (sic) is theirs.

(2.) REGARDING the appeal of the Plaintiffs, it appears that the appellate Court considered the encroachment to be trivial and said that the grant of a mandatory injunction was an enquitable relief within the discretion of the Court. It referred to Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act. and, holding that invasion is such that pecuniary compensation would be adequate, awarded Rs. 110/ - as compensation.

(3.) BUT the legal remedy of the Plaintiffs is based on their legal right to get the trespasser evicted and it does not admit of any equitable doctrine. It is a well -knwon principle of Equity that Equity follows the law. If the land encroached upon belongs to the Plaintiffs (as has been held in this case) then the Plaintiffs are legally entitled to get it back, and, that Equity will follow it rather than ove -ride it.