MAHAVIR SINGH,J. - (1.) THE second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.
(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction restra­ining the defendants-respondents from interfering in his possession over 7/10 the share in the grove in question and also for recovery of Rs. 525/- by way of damages. The suit was contested by the defendants. They denied that the plaintiff-appellant had any share in the grove in question or that he was ever in posses­sion thereof.
(3.) THE learned munsif held that the plaintiff-appellant was owner of 7/1oth share and was also in possession and, therefore, the defendants-respondents were not justified in interfering in his possession so decreed the suit for permanent injunction. He, however, dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 525/- for damages.;