BADAN SINGH Vs. MIHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants ' Second Appeal, arising from a Suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction.

(2.) Mihi Lal, the sole plaintiff-respondent (for short, 'the plaintiff ') instituted Original Suit no.475 of 1975 in the Court of the Munsif East, Ballia on 02.12.1975, praying that a mandatory injunction be granted, commanding the defendants first set to remove their encroachments, comprising a tin-shed and some other structures, described as a 'Palani ', both denoted by numericals in the plaint map, besides cattle troughs and tethers, denoted by letter N, as also brick-blocks to their water drain, denoted by letters ? ? ? ? , all done in a part of their sehan to the east of their house. Also, constructions located to the east of their house, in a part of their sehan, denoted by letters 2, 3 ', 6, 7, may be ordered to be removed; all to be done within a specified period of time, as may be stipulated by the Court. In the event of breach, the same may be ordered to be removed through process of the Court. A relief for permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought to the effect that an injunction be granted in favour the plaintiff and the defendant second set, forbidding the defendants first set from interfering in the possession over their eastern sehan (courtyard), denoted by letters 2, 3 ', 6, 7, as shown in the plaint map, or any part thereof by digging up a foundation, or raising constructions, or damaging or demolishing their troughs and cattle tethers, or blocking the flow of their water drains, both rain water and ordinary drainage, or blocking the incoming sunlight and air through their windows, in the east of their house, denoted by letters ? ? ? ? , or otherwise interfering with their possession over land denoted by figures 2, 3 ', 6, 7, as shown in the plaint map. There is an alternate relief for possession as well, praying that if the plaintiff and the defendant second set be found to have been dispossessed from any part of the suit property, a decree for possession be passed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant second set and against the defendants first set.

(3.) A better description of the parties to the Suit, who are now parties to the Appeal, would be gainful. As already said, Mihi Lal is the sole plaintiff. He is the plaintiff-respondent no.1 to this Appeal. He is now dead and represented on record by his heirs and legal representatives in the present Appeal.