schedule property as per the approved plan obtained by him from Madurai Municipal Corporation in the year 1964, marked as Ex.B2. The Advocate Commissioner, who visited the property, in his report and plan mentioned that the constructions in the suit “C” schedule property appears to be a old one. It is also seen from the averments of the parties that the properties of both the parties are adjacent to each other and any new construction put up by the respondents in the suit “C” schedule property could not have been made without the knowledge of the appellants. Further, the appellants / hereditary trustee, when he was examined as PW.1, admitted the contents of Ex.B1, wherein, he admitted that the disputed wall was damaged and therefore, the electric service connection was disconnected and electric motor was handed over to the Madurai Corporation. He further admitted in Ex.B1 that the said wall was re-constructed. Therefore, the first appellate Court felt that the contention of the respondents that the new construction put up in “C” schedule property is with the knowledge of the appellants, cannot be faulted. Hence, the first appellate Court refused to grant the relief of mandatory injunction to the appellants on the ground of long delay in approaching the Court and also his failure to make objection to the construction made by the respondents at the earliest time.
