AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Courts below have found that the plaintiff is the owner of both the varams and that the defendant is a trespasser. Issues Nos. 2 to 4 depend
upon the finding on the 1st issue and the Subordinate Judge is right in holding that on his finding in this issue against the defendant, no other question
arises for decision. The learned Vakil for the appellant relies on Ulagappan Ambalam v. Chidambaram, Chetty 29 M. 497 for the position that
when the plaintiff does not take steps to prevent the erection of the building in time, there ought to be no mandatory injunction in his favour. In that
case the defendant built upon land comprised in his holding. In the present case the defendant was a trespasser and built upon the plaint site
notwithstanding objection.
We dismiss this second appeal with costs.