B.S. Yadav, J. - (1.) The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the present respondents had filed a suit against Ballu (who had been arrayed as defendant No. 1 in the suit and who died during the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate Court and whose legal representatives i.e. the present appellants No. 1 to 6 were brought on the record) and his sons and grand sons who were arrayed as defendants No. 2to 5 praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking possession of the Dharamshala in dispute. The parties are Dhanaks (Harijans) by caste. According to the allegations in the plaint, Dhanak community collected funds and constructed the Dharamshala in dispute, about 25 years prior to the filing of the present suit and since then it was being used as Dharamshala and they have been in joint possession thereof. It was being used for the stay of the marriage parties and for other common purposes. The plaintiffs were managing the Dharamshala. Nobody was entitled to use it as his personal property. The defendants were bent upon taking the possession of the Dharamshala for the purpose of their residence.
(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants and they pleaded that the Dharamshala in dispute was not constructed by the Dhanak community. Ballu defendant had constructed it at his own cost and it was in his possession. He w-as residing in the back portion of this building with his family from the time the building was constructed and in the front portion the marriage parties used to stay with his permission. He has not dedicated the Dharamshala for public use. He was still its owner. The plaintiffs or the other members of Dhanak community had no connection with the Dharamshala.
(3.) Upon the allegations of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the Dharamshala in dispute is owned and possessed by the whole biradari of Harijan Dhanakan, Mauza Kanoda ? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is not proved, whether defendant No. 1 is the owner and in possession of the Dharamshala in dispute, if not so, to what effect ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their acts and conduct to sue ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties ? OPD. 6. Relief. Under issue No. 1, it was held that the building of the Dharamshala was not constructed by the Dhanak community and in fact it had been constructed by Ballu defendant No. 1 Under issue No. 2 it was held that Ballu was the owner and in possession of the Dharamshala. Issues No. 3 to 5 were found against the defendants as those were not pressed on their behalf. As a result of the findings under Issue Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.;