https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197401 The appellate judge remanded the case for compensation instead of possession, citing the appellant's acquiescence to the encroachment. Despite the appellant's argument for recovery of possession due to established trespass, the court emphasized the discretionary nature of relief in trespass cases. The court explored equitable estoppel principles, highlighting the impact of conduct on rights over disputed property. Upholding the lower court's decision, the court ruled that the appellant was estopped from recovering possession, allowing compensation instead. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of legal principles, balancing the rights of the parties involved in property disputes. en-us Tue, 31 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jan 2018 15:29:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197401 The appellate judge remanded the case for compensation instead of possession, citing the appellant's acquiescence to the encroachment. Despite the appellant's argument for recovery of possession due to established trespass, the court emphasized the discretionary nature of relief in trespass cases. The court explored equitable estoppel principles, highlighting the impact of conduct on rights over disputed property. Upholding the lower court's decision, the court ruled that the appellant was estopped from recovering possession, allowing compensation instead. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of legal principles, balancing the rights of the parties involved in property disputes. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 31 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197401