ABDUL HADI, J. - (1.) THESE appeals are connected, arising from the same suit O.S. No. 3652 of 1984 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. A.S. No. 14 of 1987 is by the defendant in the said suit. A.S. No. 643 of 1987 is by the two plaintiffs in the said suit. The said suit is for partition of the plaintiffs' 2/3 share in the suit vacant land, for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the superstructure put up by him in the said vacant land and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the rear portion of the said vacant land in any manner or from putting up any structure thereon or from preventing the plaintiffs from entering the suit land.
(2.) THE Court below has granted preliminary decree for partition as prayed for, and regarding the mandatory injunction prayed for, the decree that has been granted is that? to the extent necessary?, (Tamil)? for the plaintiffs to make use of their 2/3 share, the superstructure built up by the defendant should be demolished. Regarding the abovesaid prohibitory injunction prayed for the Court below has granted the injunction, pending passing of final decree, prohibiting the defendant from putting up any further construction or changing the construction already made. Now the dispute in this appeal is only with reference to the mandatory injunction-decree granted as stated above. The plaintiffs have preferred their appeal on the ground that the abovesaid mandatory decree granted is vague and unworkable and the Court below ought to have directed total demolition of the construction made by the defendant. On the other hand, the appeal by the defendant is against the decree of mandatory injunction as granted by the trial court.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the defendant's 1/3 undivided share in the abovesaid suit vacant land originally belonged to the sister of the plaintiffs and the defendant purchased the same from her by sale deed Ex. A.1 dated 30-5-1977.;