A.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is a defendant's appeal. The plaintiffs claimed the land in suit which according to them was part of plots Nos. 26 and 27 and 28, to be their agga Sahan. They said that en the portion F G D E K L the defendants had wrongfully made constructions and had also closed a door of the plaintiffs shown by letter O in the plaint map. They claimed possession over the land and the demolition of the newly made constructions. They also claimed the reopening of the door at point O. They further claimed an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's rights. The defendants contested the suit and denied that the land in dispute belonged to the plaintiffs or that they had a right of suit in respect of it. They also pleaded that the plaintiffs had no door towards the east which they could claim to maintain. The trial court dismissed the suit on 6-4-1954. An appeal was then filed by the plaintiffs on 24-5-1954. During the pendency of this appeal Raghubir Singh one of the defendants died. No notice was, however taken by any body about his death. The appeal proceeded and was allowed on 20-7-1956. The decree of the learned Munsif was set aside and the case was remanded to him. The plaintiffs, then, made an application praying that the name of Raghubir Singh be deleted because he was a member of a joint Hindu family with his nephew Raj Ballabh Singh and the latter had succeeded to his interest by survivorship. It was according to the plaintiffs not necessary to bring on record the widow of the deceased as Raj Ballabh Singh was already a party. The name of Raghubir Singh was thereupon deleted and the suit proceeded. The plea that the entire suit had abated was, not accepted. The trial court on the 24th of September, 1957 dismissed the suit in respect of the other reliefs but decreed it for the reopening of the door on the east at point O. Against this decree the plaintiffs filed an appeal and the defendants filed a cross-objection. The cross-objection of the defendants was dismissed and the decree about the reopening of the door was maintained. The appeal of the plaintiffs was however allowed in part. Though the dismissal of the suit in respect of the rest of the land was maintained the suit was decreed for possession by demolition in respect of that part of the land in dispute which was shown by letters A B H G in the map prepared by Sri P.S. Mathur Commissioner and a permanent injunction was also granted as prayed in respect of that part of the land. The plea that the entire suit had abated because of the death of Raghubir Singh and his wife had not been brought on record in his place was not accepted.
(2.) The plaintiffs have submitted to the decree but the defendants have filed this second appeal. Two contentions have been pressed on their behalf. The first is that the entire suit should have been declared to have abated because the widow of Raghubir Singh was not brought on record and two inconsistent decrees were therefore, likely to come into existence if any part of the plaintiff's suit was decreed. The second contention is that the finding of the learned Civil Judge that the portion A B H G was really the sahan of the plaintiffs and they were entitled to a decree in respect of it was not correct.
(3.) The second contention is clearly untenable, because according to the finding of the learned Civil Judge the land A B H G is really a part of plot No. 26 which belonged to the plaintiffs and with which the defendants had no concern. Title to this land being with the plaintiffs their possession could be presumed and as the defendants had wrongfully interfered with that possession the plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs which have been granted to them. The finding that this land belonged to the plaintiffs and was in their possession is a finding of fact which cannot be questioned here.;