(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction for demolition of a wall against the respondents. His suit was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal which was also dismissed.
(2.) The plaintiff's case, as mentioned in the plaint, is that the plaintiff and some of the defendants are descendents of a common ancestor Ramcharan Shukla. The dispute arose between the parties in respect of Plot No. 297/1 (for short, "the suit property"). It is stated that the defendant no. 6 Ishnarain had one-third share in the suit property and the share of the plaintiff's father Jaynarain was two-third. After the death of Jaynarain his sons Pratap Narain, Chandrabhushan and the plaintiff have two-third share. It is stated that the plaintiff, respondent no. 6 and his brothers are seerdar of the suit property. The brothers of the plaintiff, namely, Pratap Narain and Chandrabhushan have deposited ten times lagaan in respect of 4/9 share and have got bhumidhari certificate. Thus, their share was separated in respect of their share (4/9 share). The plaintiff and the defendant no. 6 were the co-sharers in respect of remaing portion. The plaintiff has further stated that there was a partition among the plaintiff, his brothers and the defendant no. 6. In respect of the said partition Pratap Narain and Chandrabhushan have got their share towards south and the plaintiff got his share in respect of 9 dismal towards east and the defendant no. 6 got his share towards the west side. The plaintiff is in possession of his share. Chandrabhushan has transferred his share to the wife of Pratap Narain. Pratap Narain and his wife have transferred about 2 dismal land to Ishnarain, the defendant no.6.
(3.) Later, Ishnarain had sold the said property to Rajesh and Sangeeta and there is no dispute regarding the said property. Pratap Narain, who got 9 dismal share, has also transferred it to defendant nos. 13 and 14.