available is only 3 acres 20.213 cents. The common boundary which the plaintiff has with the defendant has been fixed by the advocate commissioner and shown in the plan as RQ. The learned counsel submitted that both the courts below which have been called upon to examine the recovery of possession claimed on the basis of title inadvertently overlooked the claim for injunction on the basis of the apprehension raised by the plaintiff that there is a threat of trespass over the property now under his possession and enjoyment. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the decree of injunction in respect of the property as available at present, which has been identified by the commissioner under Ext.C2 was necessarily a matter which should have been gone into by the courts irrespective of the rejection of recovery claimed over the trespassed area. But, it was not done is the grievance espoused by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that the plaintiff, in the interest of justice, has to be granted a decree of injunction over the property identified in his favour under Ext.C2 plan, to safeguard and protect that property. Since his suit in its entirety has been dismissed, it is submitted by the learned counsel even in the event of a subsequent trespass, whatever be the merit of the cause of action, the plaintiff would be seriously prejudiced in getting appropriate relief from the competent court.
