1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction which has been dismissed by both the courts below.

2. The plaintiff appellantsandapos; case was as follows: One Baij Nath Lal is said to have been the raiyat of the suit plot as his self-acquired property. For some urgent necessities he is said to have sold this plot to his wife, Mossamat Kamli, who in her turn sold it to her daughter, who again sold it to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed to be in possession of the suit land after their purchase. It was said that the defendants were making false allegations leading to a proceeding under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that they had set up defendant No. 4 to make a false claim to the land and the said defendant tried to construct a temporary shed on the portion of the land and hence the necessity of the suit for maintaining the status quo.

3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 4 alone who claimed to be the purchaser of the said plot from defendants 1 to 3, the sons of the aforesaid Baij Nath Lal. According to him, the land was coparcenary property of Baij Nath Lal and his sons and he purchased a major portion of the plot