A mandatory injunction for encroachment requires proof of its precise extent and location.

The plaintiff, Revamma, sued for a permanent injunction and later sought a mandatory injunction, alleging that the defendant, Rudrappa, had encroached on her portion of ancestral property by constructing a house.

The defendant disputed the alleged encroachment and sought a Court Commissioner to determine the properties’ boundaries and measurements.

The Trial Court rejected the Commissioner’s report as fundamentally defective but nevertheless ordered the defendant to remove the encroachment; the First Appellate Court affirmed that decree.

The defendant appealed to the High Court, which admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law concerning whether a mandatory injunction was justified when the Commissioner’s report disclosed that the boundaries did not tally.

Whether the Courts below were justified in granting a mandatory injunction when the Commissioner’s report disclosed that the boundaries did not tally.

Whether a mandatory injunction requiring removal of an alleged encroachment could be granted without reliable evidence identifying its precise extent and location.

A plaintiff seeking a mandatory injunction—particularly one requiring demolition or removal of a permanent structure—must establish the alleged encroachment, including its precise extent and location, by cogent and reliable evidence.

The decree must identify the portion to be removed; otherwise, it is uncertain and incapable of effective execution.

Mandatory injunction is an exceptional and discretionary remedy, requiring a clear legal right and breach, together with irreparable injury not compensable in damages.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent as the basis for these principles.

The plaintiff did not produce title material sufficient to establish the precise boundaries and measurements of the parties’ respective portions.

The Trial Court rejected the Commissioner’s report, leaving no reliable measurement of the alleged encroachment; the report, as discussed by the First Appellate Court, also failed to disclose its exact extent.

The general division of the ancestral property among branches did not prove that the defendant had occupied a specific part belonging to the plaintiff.

Because the decree neither quantified nor identified the portion to be removed, it lacked an adequate evidentiary foundation and could not be effectively executed.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of both lower courts, and dismissed the suit.