Muchilika, the defendants had endeavoured to put up the construction, it is found that the plaintiff is not entitled to cause interference to the same, on the footing that the defendants, by way of the abovestated construction, are attempting to invade his property. As rightly determined by the Courts below, when by way of the said arrangement arrived at between the parties under the muchilika, Ex.B3, the parties had been given the right to put up the common wall in between the vacant site and in that exercise, vice versa the parties had agreed to enjoy the portions of the other parties, it is found that the defendants pursuant to the abovestated understanding, are entitled to put up the construction in their portion. As rightly determined by the Courts below, by the conduct of the parties, particularly the plaintiff, the plaintiff would be disentitled or estopped to prevent the defendants from putting up the construction in their portion as understood and agreed to between the parties under the muchilika. It is thus found that the case of the plaintiff that the defendants taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff is attempting to put up construction in excess of the portion to which he is entitled to, as such, cannot be accepted and accordingly, it is found that the Courts below are found to have assessed the materials placed on record in the right perspective and declined the relief of permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff.
