This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the original defendants who are aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate Court dated 04.02.2004 in Regular Civil Appeal No.283 of 2003 whereby the respondent-plaintiff has been declared as the owner of the suit property and the appellants have been restrained from causing any obstruction to its possession over the suit property through their agents and servants without following the due process of law.

2. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that it is the case of the plaintiff that it is a partnership firm duly registered. It claims to be the owner of Survey No.345 admeasuring about 6084.7 square meters. According to the plaintiff, the said property was initially owned by one Shri George Duncan. As said Shri George Duncan was in need of funds, he had borrowed an amount of Rs.8,000/-from one Shri Gangadharrao Chitnavis in August-1891. The suit property was mortgaged by way of security. As the amount borrowed was not repaid, Shri Chitnavis filed suit for foreclosure of the mortgaged property. Civil Suit No.1 of 1894 was decreed on 26.02.1894 and the defendants therein were granted time of six months to pay the decretal amount failing which the mortgaged property was directed to be sold. It is the case that while executing that decree, the suit property was delivered to Shri Chitnavis and he possessed the same as owner thereof. With passage of time, the property devolved on his legal heirs. On 08.08.1974, Shri G.M. Chitna vis entered into a partnership with one Shri Gurcharan Singh and the plaintiff Firm came into existence. Since then, the suit property stood in the name of the firm. In proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act of 1976), the firm sought exemption with regard to its excess vacant land and part thereof came to be duly exempted. Thereafter, necessary building plans were sanctioned and a Cinema Theatre and office blocks came to be constructed on the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had interest in the adjoining plots being Plot No.344 and while erecting a compound wall, joint demarcation was carried out on 27.04.1986. Thereafter, such construction was erected. According to the plaintiff, in the year 1988 and thereafter in the year 1991, there was exchange of communications between the parties. Ultimately the officials of the defendant no.3 requested the Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner to stop the construction being undertaken by the plaintiff Firm. In this backdrop, the firm filed suit for declaration that the defendants had no right to interfere with the construction undertaken by the firm over the suit property and that the letters issued to that effect by the defendants were illegal. Relief of permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from disturbing or threatening the possession of the plaintiff Firm was also sought.

3. Written statement at Exhibit 63 was filed by the defendants. In the written statement, the defendants asserted that they were the owners of the suit property besides other properties situated near the suit plot. The ownership of the predecessor Shri George Duncan as well as of Shri Chitnavis was decreed. It was further pleaded that the construction undertaken was on the land belonging to the defendant no.1 and it was clearly illegal. In the specific pleadings, reference was made to the manner in which the defendants claimed title. Reference was made to the notifications dated 04.06.1915 and 04.11.1939. It was thus submitted that the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The parties led evidence before the trial Court. It was held by the trial Court that the plaintiff-Firm was not the owner of the suit plot but that it was in possession thereof. The suit was partly decreed and the defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property without following due procedu