the property from Palani in the year 1985 and acquired the property through Ex.P.3, 1983 document. In 1983 document as well as Palani's document, the compound wall was not shown whereas only in 2009, when the petitioners purchased from the legal heirs of Sobithar Raj, compound wall was shown. Relying upon the Advocate Commissioner's Report which says that the compound wall is aged about 60 years, both the Courts came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable with regard to compound wall. That apart, earlier the wife of Sobitharaj and the respondent had a litigation before the Civil Court with regard to compound wall and that was decided in favour of the respondent herein. The decree obtained by the respondent in respect of the property against Pushpa Leelabai, who is one of the vendors of the petitioners has not been set aside. In those circumstances only, the application has been rightly dismissed. Moreover, the petitioners claimed mandatory injunction in respect of 'C' schedule compound wall in the suit. Till date suit is decided, by way of interim application the petitioners cannot get interim relief. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
