Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

2. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Appeal No.50/2009 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 30/6/2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gadchiroli in Special Civil Suit No.34/2003 came to be dismissed.

3. The appellants filed the suit for specific performance of contract and for injunction and in the alternative for refund of earnest money that was claimed to have been paid by them to the respondent. The plaint came to be rejected by order dated 9/2/2005 and as such the suit of the appellants did not survive. The counter claim filed by the respondent was as such taken up for consideration. The counter claim was for a mandatory injunction to remove the shed which was raised by the appellants and also for a perpetual injunction retraining the appellants not to disturb the lawful possession of the respondent over the suit property.

4. It is the case of the respondent that the land bearing Kh. No.6, situated at village Allapali, admeasuring 1152 Sq. Ft. was granted to him by the Government as per the deed dated 16th June 1989. Since then the respondent is in possession of the suit property. The respondent intended to raise a construction in the said property and as such had started putting up such construction which was raised up to the plinth level. Thereafter, due to paucity of funds the construction could not be completed. The respondent was residing at Aheri till 1996 and thereafter shifted to Chandrapur on account of his business activities. It is further his case that after 1996, the respondent used to visit the suit property regularly and on 8/11/2003 when the respondent visited the suit plot he noticed two fabricated iron structures placed on the said plinth. On enquiry, the respondent learnt that the said structure was kept thereon by the appellant no.1. It is further his contention that he immediately lodged a report to the police station against the appellant no.1 and the police officers orally directed her to stop her illegal activities. It is further his contention that the appellants had filed a false suit against him as according to him there was no agreement of any kind entered into between the respondent and the husband of the appellant no.1 with regard to the said property. It is further his case that the illegal structure kept by the appellants was lying in the suit plot and considering that the appellants' were intending to disturb the peaceful possession of the respondent over the suit plot, the counter claim was filed for a the decree of mandatory injunction to remove the said structure kept by the appellant no.1 in the suit plot as well for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondent over the suit plot.

5. The appellants have filed their written statement to the said counter claim. It is the case of the appellants that the said plinth level construction in the suit plot was erected by the husband of the appellant no.1. It is further their contention that the suit plot was in possession of the appellants and accordingly the two structures were constructed by the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants contended that the respondent is not entitled for any reliefs claimed in the counter claim.

6. The learned trial Judge after framing the issues and recording the evidence decreed the counter claim filed by the respondent thereby directed by way of mandatory injunction the appellants to remove the two iron structures kept by the appellant no.1 in the suit plot bearing Kh. No.66 situated at village Allapali and granted the permanent injunction restraining the appellants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondent over the suit plot.

7. While dealing with the issues framed in the suit; the learned Judge came to the conc