As per case facts, the plaintiff purchased a vacant site from the defendant. The plaintiff constructed a building, leaving some vacant C schedule property. The defendant allegedly encroached upon this ... C schedule property by constructing a building and installing drainage pipes. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership, mandatory injunction to demolish the illegal construction, and permanent injunction. The trial court and first appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The question arose whether a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction without praying for recovery of possession is maintainable, and if the C schedule property was properly described as per Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 7 Rule 4 of C.P.C. Finally, the High Court held that since the defendant admitted to selling the property and making encroachments during cross-examination, and the plaintiff had established ownership, a simpliciter relief for mandatory injunction was sufficient. The court found the property description adequate and dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings that the continuous prejudice from the unlawful construction could not be adequately compensated by damages.