Appellate court cannot reverse a decree in favour of an appellant without cross-appeals or cross-objections.

The Appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction alleging that Respondent No. 1 (defendant) encroached upon his land and setbacks during construction by extending slabs and beams.

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against interference but refusing the mandatory injunction for removal of structures due to lack of demarcation evidence.

The Plaintiff appealed to the First Appellate Court seeking the mandatory injunction; however, the First Appellate Court not only dismissed his appeal but also set aside the Trial Court’s grant of permanent injunction, despite the Respondents not filing any cross-appeal or cross-objections.

The Appellant then approached the High Court in a Second Appeal.

The court primarily applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding second appeals on substantial questions of law.

Under Section 96 of the CPC, an appellate court cannot interfere with a portion of a decree that has attained finality because it was not challenged by the aggrieved party through an appeal or cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22.

For the grant of a mandatory injunction involving encroachment, the court applied the evidentiary standard requiring a formal demarcation report from revenue authorities to precisely identify the extent of the encroachment.

The Court observed that Respondent No. 1 never challenged the Trial Court's decree. Since the Respondents chose not to appeal the prohibitory injunction, that portion of the decree attained finality.

The High Court reasoned that the First Appellate Court exceeded its competence by "tinkering" with a settled relief that was not before it for review, as the Plaintiff's appeal was restricted only to the denial of mandatory injunction.

The Court analyzed the evidence and found that the Appellant failed to provide a demarcation report or specific measurements of the encroached area.

In the absence of such material evidence to demonstrate the exact nature and scale of the encroachment, the Court held that a mandatory injunction for removal could not be legally sustained.

The Court held that the First Appellate Court’s total dismissal of the suit was legally unsustainable as it addressed issues not raised in the appeal, and consequently set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and revived/upheld the Trial Court's decree.