8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that only based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for in the plaint. The plaintiff has also established through oral and documentary evidence that the defendant has put up a fence-cum-compound wall in the suit schedule property unauthorizedly as he is not the owner of the same. Therefore, the trial court has rightly granted the relief of mandatory injunction also in favour of the plaintiff. This Court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the trial court. The lower Appellate Court has also rightly confirmed the findings of the trial court by dismissing the first appeal filed by the defendant. In the grounds of this Second Appeal, the appellant/defendant has raised a substantial question of law namely, since there was a condition imposed in the final decree passed in O.S.No.3 of 1960, without satisfying the said condition Mr.Viswanathan, cannot alienate the property to the plaintiff. Though the said ground has been raised in this Second Appeal, there is no pleading to that effect in the written statement filed by the defendant. The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that the said condition was fulfilled and only thereafter the property was sold to the plaintiff by Mr.Visvanathan.
