G.D. Dube, J. - (1.) THE aforesaid two appeals arise from judgment and order of two Additional Civil Judges, Ghaziabad in Suit No. 1010 of 1989 Viddya Matri Mandir v. Rajinder Nath and Anr. on 25 -8 -1990, and Suit No. 1188 of 1990 Pradeep Kumar and Ors. v. Satya Pal Singh and Ors. on 3 -9 -1990. Both the suits are in respect of the same property. Since the matter involved in both the suits is common, we are deciding the two appeals together The Circumstances, under which we decided to dispose of the two appeals together, will appear from the facts narrated below.
(2.) IN both the suits, the Plaintiffs had sought temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the same property in dispute. In suit No. 1188 of 1990, an additional prayer was made to restrain the Respondents form making only constructions over the land in dispute. The lower courts rejected both the applications. Suit No. 1010 of 1989 was filed by Vidya Matri Mandir against Rajinder Nath and Satya Pal Singh on 6 -11 -1989. In this suit, the Plaintiff -Appellant and alleged that the land in dispute was a joint family property of which defendant No. 1 was a member having 1/6th share. On account of family settlement, Vidya Matri Mandir (herein after referred to as the Society) had paid the price of 1/6th share to defendant No. 1 and came into possession. The Society had constructed a Gaushala, orphange, boundary wall, houses for residence of employees and also the Samadhi of Chaudhari Chhabil Das who had been an Honourary Magistrate for a considerably long time. It was urged that the Society did not care to get the revenue records mutated. Consequently, the name of defendant No. 1 continued in the village papers. The defendant No. 1 intention became dishonest. The price of land of Ghaziabad started escalating. Hence he made some negotiations with defendant No. 2 and had also executed some documents in his favour. The defendant No. 2 planned to make constructions over the land and collected building material near the land in dispute. Hence the suit was filed.
(3.) THE injunction application had been moved in the above suit on the above allegations. The defendants of suit No. 1010 of 1989 contested the matter and stated that the Plaintiff Society had no right and title over the plot in dispute. It was also urged that the Society is unregistered and it has no right to file the suit. The defendant No. 1 Rajinder Nath alleged that he has 1/6th share in the land in dispute and has got a right to make constructions according to his desire.;