HARISH CHANDRA PANDEY Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the defendant appellants has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.1.1983 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mirzapur in Civil Appeal No. 182 of 1979, Smt. Kamla Devi and others Vs. Harish Chandra Pandey and others arising out of judgment and decree dated 1.6.1979 passed by IIIrd Munsif, Mirzapur in OS No. 517 of 1973.

(2.) Necessary facts relevant for the present, stated in short, revealed that a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents Smt. Rajwanti, Gorakh Nath Pandey and Ravindra Nath Pandey against appellants/defendants Harish Chandra Pandey, Sheetla Prasad Pandey, in respect of suit properties shown in the plaint map with the letters A, B, C, D and Ya, Ra, La Va, situated in town Kachhawa, district Mirzapur. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff no. 1 Rajwanti died and she was substituted along with plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 Gorakh Nath Pandey and Ravindra Nath Pandey, also by present plaintiffs respondents Kamla Devi and Bimla Devi as plaintiffs 1/1 and 1/2 as her heirs and legal representatives. Subsequently, Harihar Prasad and Ram Ji Pandey were also impleaded and joined as defendants nos. 3 and 4 in the suit. It is mentioned here that initially the suit which was only for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, after impleadment of the parties was converted in a suit for declaration and possession as well as these reliefs were also added and prayed for subsequently.

(3.) Learned Munsif vide judgment and decree dated 1.6.1979 dismissed plaintiff's suit with cost. The aforesaid judgment and decree was challenged in Civil Appeal No. 182 of 1979 and the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mirzapur vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.1.1983 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif and decreed plaintiff's suit with cost throughout. Lower appellate court declared the plaintiffs/respondents as the owners of the suit property and also accepted their claim of possession and, therefore, restrained/ injuncted defendants/appellants from interfering with plaintiffs possession in any manner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court in the aforementioned civil appeal, that defendants appellants have come up in this second appeal.