Judgment :- This second appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1996 in A.S.No.56 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai confirming the decree and judgement dated 07.09.1994 in O.S.No.1029 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai. 2. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of the Second Appeal would run thus: 3. The gist and kernel of the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint is to the effect that the plaintiff’s property is situated to the South of the defendant’s property. The plaintiff raised superstructure within his land without in any way interfering with the compound wall of the defendant. It is situated to the North of the plaintiff’s land. Baselessly, the defendant’s officials entered into the plaintiff’s property and inspected the same and passed remarks as though the construction raised by the plaintiff should be demolished. Thereupon, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction as against the defendant. 4. Per contra, denying and disputing, challenging and impugning the averments/allegations in the plaint, the defendant filed the written statement inter alia to the effect that the plaintiff while raising construction rested part of his construction on the compound wall of the defendant and that plaintiff had no right to raise construction to an extent of 30 meters from the compound wall of the defendant as per the Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development and local Administration Department’s G.O.Ms.letter No.1544 dated 31.07.1973 and accordingly, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked on his side. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked on the side of the defendant and Exs.C1 to C3 were also marked as Court documents. 6. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff prepared an appeal in A.S.No.56 of 1995 which Court confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in dismissing the Original Suit. Grieved the Judgment and Decree of both the Courts below, the Second Appeal has been filed on the following main grounds among others. Grieved the Judgment and Decree of both the Courts below, the Second Appeal has been filed on the following main grounds among others. Despite the Commissioner gave a categorical findings that there was no encroachment made by the plaintiff over the defendant’s property, both the Courts below, fell into error in wrongly interpreting the Commissioner’s Report and arrived at the wrong conclusion. Both the Courts below also misconstrued the relevant rules governing the construction on the properties near the Railway track. The 30 meters formulae as envisaged in the said building rules are applicable only to the property situated adjacent to the Railway track and not to any other railway department’s property. 8. Based on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether in law have not the courts below erred in misreading the Advocate Commissioner’s report Ex.C1 which has resulted in perverse findings? (ii) Whether in law are not the judgments decrees of the Courts below vitiated in that the definition of railway would not include railway quarters vide AIR 1914 Mad.196? (iii) Have not the Courts below overlooked that the proceedings dated 22.8.1990 is not applicable to the buildings governed by Madurai City Municipal corporation Act? Substantial Question of law 1: 9. Heard both sides in entirety. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Commissioner’s report was not properly considered by both the Courts below and they arrived at the wrong conclusion. The Commissioner’s report would clearly demonstrate that the compound wall of the defendant is standing independently, and separately from of the wall of the plaintiff and there is actually a gap between the two walls. Only at the top portion of the compound wall of the Railway, there appears link between the walls of both parties. But the link is not going down to the ground level. But, there is a gap from the ground level till the top between the two walls. The plastering was made by the plaintiff, in such a manner, linking the compound wall of the defendant with the wall of the plaintiff erroneously, and it gave the impression, as though the wall of the is resting of the compound wall of the Railway department. 11. The plastering was made by the plaintiff, in such a manner, linking the compound wall of the defendant with the wall of the plaintiff erroneously, and it gave the impression, as though the wall of the is resting of the compound wall of the Railway department. 11. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Defendant would submit that this is a case, where the plaintiff’s construction is made to rest on the compound wall of the Defendant and in such a case both the Courts below properly appreciated the facts. 12. At this juncture, it is just and necessary to scrutinise Ex.C.1 to C.3, the Commissioner’s Report and Sketches respectively. The perusal of the Commissioner’s report would leave no doubt in the mind of the Court that the Commissioner was of the considered opinion that both the walls are separate from each other and there is a gap also between the two and only at the level of the top of the compound wall of the defendant, the wall of the plaintiff is linked by plastering mortar. In this context, I would like to extract here under the relevant portion of the Commissioner’s report. "Para 10. In the First point the wall of the respondent/plaintiff and the compound wall of the petitioner/defendant are as shown in the diagram I. Between the said wall and the compound wall there is small cleavage. When I inserted my fingers in the said cleave and I was able to feel the presence of the cornice in the southern side of the compound wall. The approximate thickness of the plastering of the respondent wall over the compound wall is about 1/2 inch. Para 11. In the stage No.II, I found a Vaigai R.C.Block in the compound wall of the defendant was removed already. While peeping through said gap I found presence of the bricks of the wall of the respondent/plaintiff. I have shown the lie of them in my diagram No.II. I saw the bricks in the wall of the respondent while taking the measurement of the compound wall in the said point. I found the north-south measurement of the compound wall is 12" including cornices on the both side of the compound wall. I have shown the lie of them in my diagram No.II. I saw the bricks in the wall of the respondent while taking the measurement of the compound wall in the said point. I found the north-south measurement of the compound wall is 12" including cornices on the both side of the compound wall. I removed some portion of the mortar in the said hole and I able to see that the wall of the plaintiff has no connection with the compound wall of the defendant and to verify the same I inserted the pencil into the said hole and in presence of both counsels and about 1-1/2" and there was about 1-1/2" gap between the defendant compound wall and the plaintiff’s wall. Para 12. In the third point I took the measurement of the compound wall in between two supporting pillars on the east of point ‘A’ which is indicated in my third diagram. The said wall is in the adjoining property on the east. I took the north south measurement of the said compound wall which was 9" in the said place. This leads to the conclusion that the measurement of the cornices protruding in the southern side and the northern side of the compound wall is 3" that is 1-1/2" in each side that is 12" in total. Para 15. The R.C.Pillars of the plaintiff’s wall have been put up independently without touching the compound wall, but touching the southern edge of the cornice. Probably at Point shown in diagram No.I. The plastering of the plaintiff wall might have given the impression as though the same was constructed on the defendant compound wall. Further the respondent counsel pointed out the cement mortar used for plastering of the plaintiff’s wall have spilled over the compound wall of the defendant. And for the purpose of the finishing touch very negligible and small gap between the said wall and the compound wall was plastered to give the appearance of slope to avoid running of rain water in between both walls." (emphasis supplied). 13. It is pertinent to point out that no steps have been taken by the defendant to assail the Commissioner’s Report. Before the trial Court by adducing any plausible evidence. 13. It is pertinent to point out that no steps have been taken by the defendant to assail the Commissioner’s Report. Before the trial Court by adducing any plausible evidence. As such the Commissioner’s report is a reliable piece of the evidence and he demonstrated that no part of the wall of the plaintiff is resting on the compound wall of the defendant. Exs.P.9 to P.14, the photos would also evince and evidence the location of both the walls and the plastering mortar linking both the walls at the level of the top of the compound wall. 14. The sketch prepared by the learned Advocate Commissioner would demonstrate that the Defendant is compound wall at the top is having cone shape and on either side of the compound wall of the Defendant, there is cornice projection, each to the extent of 1-1/2 inch. It is evident that and so as to that the top portion of the compound wall is projecting on the defendant’s land to an extent of 1-1/2 inch. The Commissioner also highlighted that the cone shape on the one side sloping from the centre of the compound wall towards north measuring 8-1/2 inch. But on the southern side slope measures itself 8 inches as the plastering made by the plaintiff occupies the remaining slopy portion of the said compound wall. On the top, he has also measured from the mid point of the compound wall to the plaintiff’s wall and it measured 5-1/2 inch, where as from the mid point to edge of the cornice on the northern side, it was 6 inch and even, as per that only 1/2 inch area is occupied by the plastering of the plaintiff’s wall. As already highlighted above, there is one other point, the southern side cornice of the compound was to an extent of 1-1/2 inch is projecting on the defendant’s land presumably. But ignoring even that fact considering as such, only 1/2 inch plastering is protruding on the defendant’s wall. In my opinion, this is only a negligible one. Section 95 Indian Penal Code, embodies the maxim "De minimis non curat lex (Low does not take care of trifles). Whatever might be, for that negligible extent of the plaintiff’s plastering of his own wall protruding over the area of the defendant at the most some compensation could be awarded and that would meet the ends of justice. 15. Section 95 Indian Penal Code, embodies the maxim "De minimis non curat lex (Low does not take care of trifles). Whatever might be, for that negligible extent of the plaintiff’s plastering of his own wall protruding over the area of the defendant at the most some compensation could be awarded and that would meet the ends of justice. 15. The question arises as to whether the Railway department is expected to proceed under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act 1971, so as to remove that negligible portion of the plastering effected by the plaintiff. I am of the considered view, that such action is unwarranted and awarding of compensation would meet the ends of justice. The perusal of the judgment of both the Courts below would show that they have not at all considered all these aspects while deciding the matter. 16. The trial Court simply jump to the conclusion that part of the wall of the plaintiff is built over the compound wall of the defendant, which findings of fact is totally apathetical to the Commissioner’s report which has not been set aside or rejected by the trial Court. In such view of the matter, there is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below failed, to understand the Commissioner’s report in stricto-senso by misreading the Commissioner’s report including the sketch, both the courts below had fallen into error, which warrants this Court to interfere in the Second appeal as there is expacie and prima-facie error in interpreting and misreading the Commissioner report and the Sketches. Awarding compensation, is by way of striking a balance between the two. The compensation awarded should be in recognition of the right of a Defendant which is a public body. In my opinion awarding a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty thousand) would meet the ends of justice and the appellant shall deposit it in the trial Court or directly tender it to the defendant, if the defendant chooses to receive it as a case may be with in two months from this date. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered. Substantial questions of law 2 and 3 :- 17. While hearing the arguments, the substantiate questions of law nos. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered. Substantial questions of law 2 and 3 :- 17. While hearing the arguments, the substantiate questions of law nos. 2 and 3 relegated themselves to lesser importance as a mere reading of the relevent portion of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 Act 35 of 1972. It would clearly show that the term Railway does not include the immovable properties of the Railway Department, where there is no Railway track running. The objection of preventing constructions within an extent of 30 metres is to see that building are not constructed for nothing but to get collapsed due to the vibration of the movements of the trains. Here admittedly and indubitably, no railway line is running within 30 meters from the building of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law Nos.2 and 3 are answered. 18. In the result, the second appeal is disposed of setting aside the judgment of both the Courts below and decreeing the Original Suit No.1029 of 1991 to the effect that there shall be permanent injunction as against the defendant, his agents, servants and men by way of restraining them not to interfere with any part of the constructions of the plaintiff as found set out in Exs.C.1 to C.3, the Commissioner’s report and Sketches respectively. 19. The plaintiff shall pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) to the defendant within two months from this date. 20. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are ordered to bear their respective costs.