(1.) THE respondent-plaintiff preferred a civil suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit land or from creating any charge thereupon and also for restraining the defendants from raising any construction on the suit property. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 10.12.1997 decreed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land and raising construction thereupon except on their own share. Dissatisfied with the decision rendered by the trial Court, the appellant-defendants preferred an appeal. The same was rejected on 30.1.1999 and it is against the aforesaid concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court as also by lower Appellate Court, the appellants-defendants have approached this Court through the instant regular second appeal.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent as also the appellants-defendants are admittedly descendants of Kalu. Kalu had six sons. The plaintiff is the son of Lalji Mal and grandson of Kalu. The defendants are the sons of Het Ram and grandson of Kalu. The claim of the respondent-plaintiff in the suit filed by him was that Kalu had six sons and his property was equally divided between six sons. In due course of time, there was family settlement whereupon his property was divided between six branches of the family. On the basis of aforesaid family settlement, each branch of Kalu's family headed by a son came into specific possession of the property which devolved upon them from Kalu. The injunction sought by the respondent-plaintiff was in respect of the property which came into specific possession on the basis of aforesaid family settlement. On the other hand the claim of the appellants-defendants is that the suit property is not part and parcel of ancestral property flowing to six branches of Kalu's sons but the property which was previously owned by Jawana Singh was purchased by the defendant from Jawana Singh through a registered sale-deed Ex.DA.