Gurdev Singh J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises outof a suit brought by Lakshmi Narain and five others (respondents 1 to6) who claimed to be joint owners of the proparty known as Allahabadbank Building situate in Chandni Chauk, Delhi, along with defendant-respondents 7 to 10. They complained that the appellants Balkishan Dass and others (defendants 1 to 3), who were carrying on thebusiness of watch-merchants in the contiguous property that vested inthe Custodian, had wrongfully trespassed on the plaintiffs propertyby fixing a mechanical device on a girder belonging to the owners tooperate the folding shutters of their shops. It was further allegedthat this unlawful act of the appellants had not only deprived theplaintiffs and their co-owners of the girder but had also greatly weakened and damaged it and was a source of nuisance. . Accordingly, theplaintiff respondents prayed for an injunction directing the appellantsto remove the mechanical device for operating their shutters and torestrain them from in any way encroaching upon the girder. In reaisting the suit, the appellants denied that they had committed trespasson the plaintiffs property and encroached upon it and also pleadedthat the girder in question did not belong to the plaintiffs nor didthey have locus standi to sue. The learned trial Judge, however, foundthat the girder in dispute belonged to the plaintiff-respondents, butneither the shutters nor the device installed by the contesting defendants to operate the same were fixed to the girder. He, however,found that a part of the mechanical device for operating the shutter-installed by the appellants was projecting over the girder to a smallextent. Accordingly, the plaintiffs suit was decreed with costs. Thisdecree has been upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Seniorsubordinate Judge, Delhi, and affirming the various findings of thetrial Court he held that no part of the machinery or shutters was fixedto the plaintiffs girder but the machinery projected over the girder tothe extent of about two inches. ( 2 ) AFTER hearing the parties counsel, I am of the opinion thatthis appeal must be accepted. At the time the suit was instituted,the plaintiff-respondents owned the Allahabad Bank Building and thegirder in dispute alongwith the defendants 7 to 10 It is admittedthat since then a partition has taken place between the joint ownersas a result of which the plaintiff-respondents ceased to have any interest in this property. At the time the suit was instituted,the plaintiff-respondents owned the Allahabad Bank Building and thegirder in dispute alongwith the defendants 7 to 10 It is admittedthat since then a partition has taken place between the joint ownersas a result of which the plaintiff-respondents ceased to have any interest in this property. The decree under appeal is only in their favourand the defendant respondents 7 to 10 never voiced any grievanceagainst the installation of the machinery by the appellants. In fact,defendant No 4 who is at present one of the co-owners of the property, appearing as D. W. 1 at the trial, rot only admitted that the slightprojection of the device for operating the shutter over the girder causedno interference or hindrance to the user of the property by the owners,but also specifically stated that he did not object to this projection. ( 3 ) APART from this, I agree with the learned counsel for theappellants that even on the findings recorded by the Courts below noinjunction ought to have been issued against the respondents. It hasbeen found that the machinery or the device for operating the shuttersinstalled by the appellants is not fixed to the ginder of the plaintiff-respondents or to any other part of their property but it simply projects over the girder to the extent of about 2". The learned Additionalsenior Subordinate Judge has also found on the basis of the evidenceof the plaintiffs witnesses, P W 7 and P W. 8. that this slightprojection in no way causese any interference or obstruction to the passageleading to the Allahabad Bank Building. The trespass found by thecourts below is of technical character. It is not disputed that thegirder itself is on the municipal land. In view of all these facts, thecourts below gravely erred in granting the injunction against theappellants As his been pointed out in Rai Bahadur Seth Chandi Ramv. The Sacretary of State for India in Council in dealing with suitsfor injunction the Court has to consider in each case not merelywhether the plaintiff s legal right has been infringed or even materiallyinfringed but also whether under all the circumstances of the case heought to be granted an injunction as the proper and appropriate remedyfor such infringement. ( 4 ) I. accordingly, accept the appeal with costs and dismiss the plaintiffs suit.