Sabina, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFFS had filed a suit for permanent injunction that Defendants be restrained from interfering in their peaceful possession. The case of the Plaintiffs, in brief, is that Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 were owners in possession of suit land as described in head note of the plaint. Plaintiff No. 3 was legal heir of Kantha Ram @ Kunda Ram - co -sharer, and had come in possession of 4 kanals 8 R.S.A. No. 916 of 2004 (O&M) 2 marlas of land as a co -sharer. Devki Devi, other co -sharer in the suit land, had sold her share to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs had raised construction over a portion of the suit land and the Defendants had no concern with the same.
(2.) DEFENDANTS , in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that a suit titled Raghu Nath v. Pawan Kumarqua the suit land was already pending. Plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property and had no concern with the same. The suit land had been mortgaged with possession with Defendants No. 3 to 6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the property in dispute has already been partitioned? OPP 3. Whether the property in dispute has been mortgaged, if so whether it was a valid mortgage ? OPD
(3.) WHETHER the property in dispute has not been redeemed so far ? OPD;