right. Defendants 1 and 3 are the children of Paru and second defendant, her daughter-in-law. Defendants 1 and 3 have contended that they were born and brought up in that building. When that be so, immediately on execution of Ext.A1 sale deed by the mother in favour of one of the children (plaintiff) in the absence of proof showing that the continuance of occupation by the defendants was on the basis of some agreement or concession from the plaintiff, she is incompetent to claim a decree of mandatory injunction for evicting the other occupants from the building. Her remedy, no doubt, is to claim eviction of the defendants on the basis of her title. Different principles may apply when recovery or eviction is sought on the basis of title which can never be considered when a decree is claimed for mandatory injunction. The lower appellate court correctly and rightly held that in granting the relief of mandatory injunction, which is purely discretionary, the principles of equity, taking into consideration the facts involved, have to be given primary significance. Further more, the plaintiff must establish the breach of the obligation cast upon the defendants to claim such a decree of mandatory injunction as enunciated under Section 39 of the Specific Reliefs Act. That being so, in the given facts of the case, the finding entered by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff
