BERI, J.—Against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City passed by him on 20th July, 1959 the plaintiff has come up in second appeal. 2. There is a haveli situated on Nahargarh Road, Jaipur City. It was jointly owned by Mst. Raja and defendants Chand Narain, Radha Ballabh and Ram Shanker. Mst. Raja mortgaged her share in the property to Brij Mohan, since deceased and now represented by Devi Narain and others. A decree having been passed against Mst. Raja the mortgaged property was purchased by Devi Narain and others. This haveli has a pol measuring about 105" x 710" as per plan Ex. 2-A. In the earlier stage of this litigation Devi Narain and others claimed this pol to be their exclusive property but this stand has been now abandoned and it is common ground that this pol is the joint property of Devi Narain and others, Chand Narain, Radha Ballabh and Ram Shanker. Beyond this pol in the plan Ex. 2-A there is a chowk which has a stair case belonging exclusively to Chand Narain shown in green colour. Chand Narain covered half the portion of the pol abutting his part of the property and constructed a wall in the chowk which provoked the plaintiffs to institute a suit for a mandatory injunction. The suit was resisted by Chand Narain. The trial Court expressed the opinion that the pol was the joint property of Chand Narain, Radha Ballabh and Ram Shanker and Devi Narain and others. He, however, held that no case for demolition of the half roof was made out because the co-sharers were equally entitled to enjoy it. The trial court, however, granted a mandatory injunction to the plaintiffs in regard to a wall in the chowk which Chand Narain had made and ordered it to be demolished. I am told that the same has since been demolished and no controversy survives on that account. The plaintiff having not succeeded in getting the roof constructed by Chand Narain demolished, preferred an appeal. Before the first appellate Court a major portion of the controversy related to the question whether the pol was the joint property of Mst. Raja with Chand Narain and others or the exclusive property of Mst. Raja which was purchased by Devi Narain and others. Before the first appellate Court a major portion of the controversy related to the question whether the pol was the joint property of Mst. Raja with Chand Narain and others or the exclusive property of Mst. Raja which was purchased by Devi Narain and others. In the last paragraph of the judgment the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the pol was undoubtedly the joint property of the plaintiffs and the defendants. In the circumstances of the case he found that all the parties will have the right to use the roof constructed by Chand Narain, therefore, it need not be demolished. It was also observed that it was not shown how the plaintiffs were adversely affected by this construction. The plaintiffs have come up in second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the pol in question, having regard to its situation, without a roof was an obvious source of light and air to the plaintiffs apartments, and any coverage thereof would materially affect the benefits available to the plaintiffs property. His further submission is that howsoever noble the sentiment may be that the plaintiffs would also be able to use the roof that Chand Narain has constructed at his own expense, it is completely devoid of realism because there is no way to reach it without going through the stair-case of Chand Narain. Practically speaking, in the ultimate analysis it will be a roof exclusively for the use of Chand Narain while it would diminish the light and air to the plaintiffs premises. He also contended that the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title Mst. Raja had instituted a suit before the Munsiff, Jaipur, seeking an injunction against Ram Shanker, Radha Ballabh and the father of the defendant Chand Narain restraining them from making any encroachments on this disputed pol, and eventually a judgment was pronounced by the said Munsiff on 22nd January, 1953, that the pol in dispute was the joint property of Mst. Raja, Radha Ballabh, Ram Shanker and Chand Narain and that none of the co-sharers could make any construction on it. Notwithstanding this judicial order of injunction passed against Chand Narain, and Radha Ballabh and Ram Shanker, Chand Narain had constructed the roof and now he seeks its continuance in the name of equity. 4. Raja, Radha Ballabh, Ram Shanker and Chand Narain and that none of the co-sharers could make any construction on it. Notwithstanding this judicial order of injunction passed against Chand Narain, and Radha Ballabh and Ram Shanker, Chand Narain had constructed the roof and now he seeks its continuance in the name of equity. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents stoutly supported the judgment of the courts below and submitted that there was a concurrent finding of this fact that there was no material prejudice to the plaintiffs on account of this construction. In the absence of that prejudice a court of equity could not order the demolition of the construction intended for the benefit of all the parties giving them shelter from rain and sun. 5. A number of authorities have been cited by the learned counsel for the parties and I shall presently notice some of them, which will be helpful in the decision of the case. In Parasram vs. Sheojit(l) Mr. Justice Mahmood observed that where a joint owner erects a building on a land without the permission of his co-sharers and despite their protest this by itself is not sufficient to entitle such co-owners to get demolition of the building unless they can further show that the building has caused such material and substantial injury as could not be remedied in a suit for partition of the joint land. In Joy Chunder Rukhit vs. Bippro Churn Rukhit (2) it has been laid down that before a Court will, in the case of co-sharers, make an order directing that a portion of the joint property alleged to have been dealt with by one of the co-sharers without the consent of the other should be restored to its former condition, a plaintiff must show that he has sustained some injury which materially affects his position. In S.S.V. Krishnan Pillai vs. Kilashathammal (3) the learned Judge observed that balance of convenience alone is the principle on which cases of mandatory injunction can be decided. In Abdul Rahman Khan vs. Daulat Khan(4) it has been held that the plaintiff should prove special damages before he is entitled to any mandatory injunction. In S.S.V. Krishnan Pillai vs. Kilashathammal (3) the learned Judge observed that balance of convenience alone is the principle on which cases of mandatory injunction can be decided. In Abdul Rahman Khan vs. Daulat Khan(4) it has been held that the plaintiff should prove special damages before he is entitled to any mandatory injunction. In Yusafalim Hakimji vs. Muhammad Din & Sons(5) the learned Judge held that in a case of property which is not partible injunction against a co-owner relating to the erection of structures on the joint property, be given and there is no occasion for the plaintiff to show any special damages. In Nathulal vs. RoshanlaI(6) Bapna J., considered a case where there was a joint open chowk and the defendant made an encroachment on that chowk the question arose whether a decree for demolition, be granted or not, and he held that having regard to the conditions of living in the locality it was of vital importance that the chowk should remain open. In Chhagan Lal vs. Kesar Lal(7) Dave J., as he then was, has expressed the opinion that if one of the joint-owners makes a construction over a common property, which is an infringement of the right of the other co-owner and the common property is incapable of partition, the proper remedy is a mandatory injunction for restoration of the joint property to its original condition by the demolition of the new construction. In this case the total width of the common passage was narrowed on account of construction. In Moolchand vs.Chhoga(8) the learned Judge observed that where a party notwithstanding a temporary injunction granted against him restraining him from making any construction took law into its hand pending the decision of the case, spent money on the construction, he did so at his own risk and because a valuable right of passage was denied in a case like that it was imperative that the original position be restored. In Roopchand vs. Poonamchand(9) which was a case of joint wall, the principle concerning the grant of mandatory injunction came to be discussed, the learned Judge observed that the deprivation of user was such an occasion. In Balvant Yadheshwar vs. Srinivas Appaji Kulkarni(l0) it was observed that for the grant of mandatory injunction it was not necessary that the plaintiff should prove any particular injury or loss or damage caused to him. In Balvant Yadheshwar vs. Srinivas Appaji Kulkarni(l0) it was observed that for the grant of mandatory injunction it was not necessary that the plaintiff should prove any particular injury or loss or damage caused to him. Hence the question of compensation did not arise. 6. From the decisions aforesaid a trend is apparent that in the earlier decisions not only material injury but also substantial injury was expected before an . injunction could be granted. The considerations of balance of convenience which included the question of deprivation of user partial or entire also influenced the decision whether a mandatory injunction should or should not be granted. It is neither proper nor necessary to lay down any hard and fast principle which would regulate the issuance of mandatory injunctions. Broadly speaking, however, where a joint owner appropriates the user of the portion of the joint property for himself and the other party is innocent of any such encroachment or user and there is a threat of a progressive extinction of the right of an co-owner whether partial or in entirety a Court will have to give a serious thought to the question of granting of a mandatory injunction. In the case before me it will be relevant to remember that the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff instituted a suit apprehending the designs of defendant Chand Narain that he intended to appropriate by construction the joint property, namely, the Pol. The Munsif by his judgment, already referred to above, issued an injunction restraining Chand Narain from making any construction on the Pol in question. That was in 1953. In June, 1956 Chand Narain ignored that injunction judicially issued and made a construction. He has covered halt of the Pol. The roof of the half Pol is only approachable through his own stair-case and it is impracticable to except that the plaintiff will ever be able to get use of that roof. A party, who is thus on his own showing clearly contumacious to the courts order has no right in equity to ask for any indulgence. In fact, condoning this encroachment on the part of Chand Narain would be giving judicial recognition to his defiance of the judicial mandate. A party, who is thus on his own showing clearly contumacious to the courts order has no right in equity to ask for any indulgence. In fact, condoning this encroachment on the part of Chand Narain would be giving judicial recognition to his defiance of the judicial mandate. So far as the question of injury is concerned, leaving alone the adjectives material or substantial for the moment, it is evident that the coverage of the Pol is bound to effect light and air of the premises that touch it. Prima facie, therefore an injury to the plaintiff is capable of being inferred and I do so. I am in respectful agreement with the principles laid down in Chhaganlals case (7). I am of the view that this is a fit case where an injunction ought to have been granted against the respondents directing them to demolish the cover made by them on the Pol. 7. No other point has been pressed before me. 8. The result is that I allow this appeal and direct that Chand Narain shall at his own expenses demolish the roof on the Pol shown in Ex.2-A within a period of 2 months from today. The appellant will get his costs of this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents asked for leave to appeal. Leave is refused.