The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in awarding general damages to the respondents as no such relief was pleaded or proved, and the amended plaint only sought mesne profits, which were also not substantiated by evidence. The court further found that the order for eviction or recovery of possession was redundant since the respondents had already obtained vacant possession prior to the conclusion of the trial, as confirmed by both oral evidence and the eviction order on record. The appellate court therefore varied the High Court's decree by dismissing the respondents' suit with costs to the appellant, deleting the monetary award, and confirming the order for vacant possession but prohibiting any further execution since possession had already been handed over. The decretal sum deposited in the joint advocates' account was ordered to be released to the appellant.