- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. These two second appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-11-1996/3-12-1996 recorded by the IInd Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kanpur Dehat in Civil Ap peal No. 158 of 1996 and 203 of 1995 which were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment. These appeals were against the judgment and decree in two suits, being 55 of 1986 and 463 of 1980, which were heard and decided together on 28-7-1995.
(2.) SUIT No. 463 of 1980 was instituted by the present appellants for perpetual as well as mandatory injunction claiming the suit property as their own and alleging dis turbance of their possession by the present respondents by their attempt to raise a wall. The present respondent, Ranvijay Singh, in tatted SUIT No. 55 of 1986 for injunction against the present appellants claiming the suit property to be his own. The two suits were consolidated and both the suits were dismissed by the trial judge. Both the parties preferred separate appeals which were numbered as appeal Nos. 203 of 1995 and 158 of 1996 and the two appeals were also amalgamated. The appel late court had dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 203 of 1995 filed by the present appellants, and confirmed the order of dismissal of their Suit No. 463 of 1980. The appellate Court by the same order dated 23-11-1996 allowed the appeal of Ranvijay Singh bear ing Civil Appeal No. 158 of 1996 and decreed the suit of Ran Vijay Singh in Suit No. 55 of 1986. The decree directed that the decree would not be effective against Hanuman (present respondent No. 2) for the house situated towards the west of the house of Hanuman. Both these appeals have been filed by the defendants in Ran Vijay's case who was the plaintiff in the other case. Both the parties have come up with contending claims of ownership and posses sion. The trial Court had framed a definite issue on the question of possession of the suit property. On this issue the trial court found that the parties could not establish their title. It also found Ram Vijay Singh was in illegal possession of the suit property and it disallowed the appeal to Ran Vijay because his possession could not be tagged with title.
(3.) THE first appellate Court also engaged itself to look to the question of possession of the suit property by one party or the other. THE appellate Court was of the view that Ran Vijay Singh could establish his possession on the suit property for 15 years prior to the institution of the suit and other party could not prove their possession on the suit property. THE appellate court was of the view that on the basis of the finding of long possession of Ran Vijay Singh and on the basis of absence of a better title of the present appellant, the suit of Ran Vijay should not have been dismissed. Thus, there was a consistent finding of possession of Ran Vijay on the suit property and a consistent finding that the present appel lants were not in possession thereof. I find no fault in the judgment of the first appellate Court calling for any inter ference therein. When it is a conflict be tween the two parties and the courts have consistently held that none of them could prove their title, the prayers for injunction could have been decided only on the ques tion of possession as a person in possession is entitled to protect it from all concerned except against the lawful owner.;