Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) THE defendants/appellants have filed this Second Appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 23.4.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 197 of 2007, whereby the appeal has been dismissed with cost.
(2.) THE brief facts are that the respondents filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants/appellants with the allegation that they purchased a plot of land No. 112 measuring 1800 Sq. Ft. situate at Mohalla Makka Ganj, Iradat Nagar, Lucknow from Smt. Urmila Singh and Vishambhar Singh by means of registered sale deed dated 6.1.1989. In the year 1994 when the plaintiff/respondents tried to raise boundary wall over the plot in question, the defendants/appellants interfered in their construction work and tried to take forcible possession over the plot in question. It was further pleaded that the defendants/appellants inspite of interim injunction order, raised a permanent structure over 450 Sq. Ft. of land, as a result of which the Northern Exit of the plaintiff/respondents has been obstructed. For the removal of this structure a relief for mandatory injunction was also prayed by the plaintiffs/respondents. The defendants/appellants contested the suit and filed their written statement stating therein that they had no knowledge about any sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff/respondents. They further pleaded that the plaintiffs/respondents wanted to take forcible possession of their land for which they had instituted a suit being R.S. No. 544 of 1994 in the court of Munsif South, Lucknow, in which an interim injunction was passed on 21.10.1994 and the parties were directed to maintain status -quo. This interim order was subsequently confirmed by the order dated 17.8.1995. However, the said suit was dismissed for non prosecution on 15.11.1995 and an application for restoration was moved by them. The said restoration application was allowed and the suit was restored on its original number but since then the plaintiff/respondents had been trying to disobey the injunction order granted by that court and filed a suit for permanent mandatory injunction on baseless grounds.
(3.) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed 10 issues and recorded a finding that on the basis of the evidence available on record, the plaintiffs/respondents were owner in the possession of the plot in question and the defendants/appellants had been creating hindrance in the construction of work of the plaintiff/respondents. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the suit was decreed and the defendants/appellants were permanently restrained from making any interference in the title and possession of the plaintiffs/respondents. The defendant/appellants were further directed to remove unauthorized construction within a month.;