B.A. Patil, J.

The present second appeal has been preferred by defendant Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi, in RA No.7 of 2008 dated 18.12.2010 whereunder the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S. No.145 of 2006 is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by declaring him as the owner of the suit open space and restraining the defendants from obstructing his possession over the open space and they were directed to remove the pillars put up in the suit open space by encroachment within a month from the date of the order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit property that the open space measuring 11 feet east-west and 9 feet north-south situated at Bhog village, taluka Chikodi and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction to remove the construction made in the suit property. It is the contention of the plaintiff that his father deceased Peeraso Sayyedso Manturkar purchased the suit property and house property bearing VPC No.1442 from Bhavu Khavare and his two sons for a sum of Rs.700/- by virtue of a sale deed dated 12.04.1966. He also contended that to the east of the suit property there is a property belonging to Balaku Bhosle consisting of house bearing VPC No.1445 and open space bearing VPC No.1444 and to the west of the suit property there is a property of VPC No.1446 belonging to the vendors of defendant. He further contended that the house bearing VPC No.1442 measuring 9 feet east-west and 27 feet north-south and the same is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and he is doing business in the sale of butter and he used to park his car in the suit property.

3. In pursuance of the summons, defendants appeared and filed their written statement contending that the description of the suit property is not correct and the plaintiff is having no concern over the suit property. He further contended that the suit property is part and parcel of VPC No.1446 and after obtaining necessary permission from the Gram Panchayat, they have put up the construction in the said area. They further contended that one Babu Appa Parit filed a suit before the vacation District Judge, Belgaum, in VOS No.49 of 2006 and obtained an exparte injunction and immediately after vacation, the said suit was transferred to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chikodi and by order dated 28.06.2006 temporary injunction granted exparte was vacated. The plaintiffs have filed a suit only in order to harass the defendants in collusion with Babu Appa Parit. On these grounds they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The plaintiffs in order to prove his case, got examined himself as PW-1 and got examined two more witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW-1 and got marked Exs.D-1 to D-18.

5. After hearing the parties to the lis, the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24.11.2017. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in RA No.7 of 2008 and by the impugned judgment and decree, the judgment and decree passed in the Original Suit has been set aside and the relief claimed by the plaintiff has been granted. Now the defendants appellants are before this Court contending that the lower appellate Court has utterly failed to consider the fact that there is no proper description of the suit property and without proper description of the suit property, the suit itself is not maintainable in law. He further contended that when the plaintiff has specifically contended that the defendants are in possession of the property and a mandatory injunction to remove the construction has been sought then under such circumstances, that itself goes