the plaintiff and put up the septic tank as detailed in the plaint and though the abovesaid case of the plaintiff had been refuted by the defendants, considering the commissioner's report and plan marked as Exs.C3 and C4 coupled with the evidence of the advocate commissioner examined as DW2, wherethrough, it has been brought home that the defendants have encroached into the portion of the suit property and put up the septic tank as detailed in the report and plan as well as spoken to by the advocate commissioner during the course of his evidence and despite the cross examination of the advocate commissioner by the defendants, nothing having been culled out from his mouth to buttress the defence version of the defendants and on the other hand, the advocate commissioner having reiterated the encroachment made by the defendants into the suit property, which had been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff following the court process in E.P.No.3/1998 and though it is noted that the defendants had put forth objection to the advocate commissioner's report and plan, however, the defendants having not placed any material worth acceptance to sustain the objections put forth by them, accordingly, the courts below, on an analysis of the entire materials placed on record, particularly, the commissioner's report and plan and the evidence of the advocate commissioner found that the defendants had, without any authority, trespassed into the suit property, which had been allotted to the plaintiff and unlawfully put up the septic tank without any entitlement and thereby found to have rightly granted the relief of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.
