Pankaj Mithal, J. - (1.) This Second Appeal by the defendant appellants is directed against judgment, order and decree of the courts below dated 7.11.1975 passed in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1972 and of the Trial Court dated 20.3.1972 in Original Suit No. 33 of 1966, Brij Mohan v. Ram Charitter & ors. . By the aforesaid judgments and orders the suit of the plaintiff respondents for permanent injunction was decreed by the Trial Court and the said decree was upheld by the Appellate Court.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondents sued the defendant appellants for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in their possession over their 'Sahan' and 'Marhala' situate on part of sikmi plot Nos. 250 and 258 at village Rakhaia, Tappa Nawai pargana Nagar west Tehsil Haraiya, district Basti. The defendant appellants denied the title and possession of the plaintiff respondents over the disputed land. They claimed their own title over the disputed Marhala and alleged that it falls in Sikmi plot No. 249. It was also alleged that Sikmi plot No. 250 is a Rasta and is not a Sahan land. The Trial Court while decreeing the suit held that the plaintiff respondents were the owners of the land of the aforesaid plots and also the Marhala which existed on sikmi plot Nos. 250 and 258. The Appellate Court also affirmed the above findings on the basis of the confirmed survey map 75C which was made part of the decree.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that initially the suit for injunction was instituted in respect sikmi plot No. 250 only and the injunction in respect of Sikmi plot No. 258 was sought subsequently by way of an amendment in the plaint. According to him the said amendment was wrongly allowed. The plaintiff respondents have earlier filed an application for amendment to the same effect on 24.2.1972 and the same was rejected by the court on 13.12.1971. Therefore another application for amendment to include sikmi plot No. 258 as part of Sahan for the purposes of injunction was neither maintainable nor was liable to be allowed. It was incorrectly allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 14.12.1972.;