8.It is not in dispute that the plaintiff sought the relief of mandatory injunction for restoring the pipeline laid in the property admittedly belonging to the defendants. But he claimed that he has right to draw water through the defendants' lands in view of the agreement executed on 18.10.1976, marked as Ex.A1. The defendants are not admitting such agreement and on the other hand, disputing such execution. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to seek appropriate relief viz., a relief of declaration to declare his right based on such agreement by proving the same in a manner known to law. Without seeking any relief of declaration, in my considered view, seeking the relief of mandatory injunction alone is not maintainable, especially when it is admitted by the plaintiff that the suit pipeline was originally laid only in the defendants' property. Therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit, while the Appellate Court has erroneously reversed such finding and granted the decree without going into this aspect. Accordingly, I find that the findings rendered by the lower Appellate Court by not appreciating the above stated facts and circumstances, cannot be sustained and the same has to be set aside. Consequently, the second appeal is allowed and the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are answered in favour of the appellants. Thus, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court are restored. However, it is open to the respondent herein/plaintiff to file a separate suit for declaration and for consequential relief, if the plaintiff is having any such right. If any such suit is filed, the same shall be considered and
