Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Anurag Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR, Mr. Divyam Dhyani, Adv., Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Adv.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land purchased by the plaintiffs, who are partners in a firm, through a registered sale deed. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of the land, which included a disputed boundary wall constructed by the defendant that obstructed access to a public road (!) (!) .

2. The plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the boundary wall, asserting that the wall was unlawfully constructed and obstructed their access to the land and road (!) (!) .

3. The defendant admitted that a boundary wall existed for about thirty years but disputed the plaintiffs' ownership, possession, and the validity of the sale deed. The defendant also claimed that the land was acquired by the State Government and that the suit was barred under certain statutory provisions (!) (!) .

4. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, establishing their ownership and possession based on the sale deed and revenue records, and held that the defendant's boundary wall was illegal and obstructed lawful access. The court decreed a mandatory injunction for removal of the wall (!) (!) .

5. The appellate courts upheld the trial court’s decision, confirming the grant of the mandatory injunction and dismissing the defendant’s appeal (!) .

6. The High Court, however, reversed these findings, holding that the suit was barred under specific statutory provisions, primarily because it sought only removal of the wall without seeking possession, and that the plaintiffs' title and the exact location of the wall were not conclusively proven. The High Court further questioned the validity of the title based on the sale deed, especially regarding the rights of a hereditary tenant involved in the transaction (!) (!) .

7. The High Court emphasized that the existence of a serious dispute over ownership, possession, and the precise location of the disputed wall rendered the suit for injunction unsustainable without a claim for possession or declaration of title. It held that the proper remedy in such cases is a suit for possession, not merely an injunction (!) (!) .

8. The plaintiffs challenged the High Court’s decision, contending that the concurrent findings of the lower courts should have been upheld and that the High Court improperly reappreciated the evidence, which is not permissible in second appeal under the law (!) (!) .

9. The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable because it did not seek possession and that the High Court correctly applied the statutory provisions to dismiss the suit (!) (!) .

10. The legal principles reiterated in the document clarify that a suit for injunction is maintainable when the plaintiff is in lawful possession and the possession is interfered with, or where the possession is permissive and no serious dispute over title exists. Conversely, when there is a cloud over title and possession, the appropriate remedy is a suit for declaration of title and possession, not merely an injunction (!) (!) (!) .

11. The Court concluded that the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside the lower courts’ judgments due to legal errors, including misapplication of the law and failure to consider material facts. The appeal was dismissed, and the original judgments were upheld (!) (!) .

These points encapsulate the core legal reasoning, factual findings, and procedural issues addressed in the document.