Tarun Agarwala, J.;— This is a defendants-appellant's appeal. The facts of the case is, that the plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the wall and Chhappar shown by the letters indicated in the plaint map and restore the land in its original condition in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere in the plaintiff's possession over the land in question. The plaintiff contended that he was the owner and in possession over the land in question since the time of his ancestors and that the defendant illegally erected a Chhappar in the Sehan of the plaintiff. The defendants contested the suit and denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over any part of the land in dispute. The defendants in their written statement contended that the land in suit was in their possession for a long time and that the plaintiff was never in possession. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the appellant was the owner of the disputed land and was in possession till the construction of the madai and the wall in suit? (2) Whether the respondent had encroached upon the land in suit? (3)Whether the suit was barred by time? The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff was not the owner nor in possession of the land in question and that the defendant had not made any encroachment. The plaintiff being aggrieved filed an appeal. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the defendant encroached the Sehan of the plaintiff by making some construction and that the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of the land. The trial court accordingly decreed the suit and directed the defendant to remove the construction within two months failing which it would be open to the plaintiff to approach the court and get the construction removed. The defendant being aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate court has filed the present second appeal. At the time of admission of the second appeal, no substantial question of law was framed. The defendant being aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate court has filed the present second appeal. At the time of admission of the second appeal, no substantial question of law was framed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the court finds that from a perusal of the evidence brought on record, a categorical finding has been made that the defendant had recently constructed the wall. The lower appellate court consequently came to the conclusion that the defendant had encroached the land in question. The appellate court further found from the location of the house of the defendant that the main door of the defendant was towards south further fortifies the case of the plaintiff that he was using the land as his Sehan since long which facts was supported by the witnesses of the defendant itself. In the light of the aforesaid, the lower appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that the defendant had encroached the land in dispute and that the plaintiff was the owner of the land in question. The contention of the defendant-appellant is, that the decree for demolition should not have been passed and that the court below should have awarded compensation of damages. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of U.P.State Electricity Board Vs. R.Wheeler ( AIR 1983 Allahabad 8) wherein the court held that in view of the provision of 39 of the Specific relief Act, the question of the compensating the plaintiff can be considered by the trial court. In the opinion of the Court, damages can be awarded for illegal use of the land in question but the encroachment has to be removed and that an encroachment upon the land of the plaintiff cannot be compensated by this way of damages. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not find that any substantial question of law arising in the appeal. The court has found that illegal possession has been taken by the defendant and, this being a finding of fact, the appellate court rightly directed the defendant to remove the encroachment. The second appeal is dismissed. _____________