MASURIA DEEN AND OTHERS Vs. AMRITI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal has been filed by the de­fendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1984 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad (Lower Appellate Court) whereby Civil Appeal No. 281 of 1979, filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein, was allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Allahabad (Trial Court) dated 9.4.1979 was set aside, and the Original Suit No. 5 of 1975, filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein, was decreed.

(2.) IT appears that the plaintiffs-respondents herein filed a suit for per­manent injunction against the defendants-appellants herein in respect of a House shown by the letters Aa, Ba,. Sa, Da in the plaint map. The said house has hereinafter been referred to as "the disputed house". The details in regard to the said disputed house were given at the foot of the plaint of the said suit.

(3.) IT was, inter alia, alleged by the plaintiffs-respondents herein in the said suit that Daya Ram had been the owner of the disputed house; and that the disputed house was got built by the ancestors of the said Daya Ram; and that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein (Smt. Amriti) was the wife of the said Daya Ram, and their marriage had taken place 13 years back; and that the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 herein (Smt. Prema) was the real sister of the said Daya Ram; and that the said Daya Ram died on 21.5.1972; and that the said Daya Ram and the plaintiff-respondent No.; 1 (Smt. Amriti) had no issue, and 'as such, on the death of the said Daya Ram, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (Smt. Amriti) and the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 (Smt. Prema) inherited the disputed house and they had been living in the disputed house; and that the defendants-appellants had neither any right nor possession over the disputed house in any manner, but out or ill-will, the defendants-appellants were threatening to forcibly take possession of the disputed house and evict the plaintiffs-respondents from the disputed house; and that in the circumstances, it was necessary that the defendants-appellants be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents over the disputed house.