PILADRAM Vs. SURJANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE finding of both the lower courts is that the defendant respondent has encroached upon the plaintiff's land in a triangular shape with nine inch, 9 base on the northern side by constructing a well. The trial court was of the opinion that this encroachment took place because the plaintiff not construct his boundary wa 1 after full measurements. It therefore held that it was not a case which called for a mandatory injunction but was one where a sum of Rs. 50/ - as compensation would suffice. The above finding was affirmed by the appellate court. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree pasted by the appellate court, the plaintiff has filed this appeal and the defendant his filed cross -objection.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the plaintiff -appellant that in cases of encroachment mere award of compensation is not an appropriate remedy as it is a continuing trespass on the plaintiff's property. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the defendant that this is a fit case for compensation and not for grant of a mandatory injunction. His further contention is that the amount of compensation awarded by the courts below is excessive.

(3.) AS regards cross -objection, I do not think that the amount of Rs. 50/ - awarded by way of compensation is in any way excessive.