The person who has no title cannot obtain a decree for injunction against the person in occupation.

Prakash Tatia, J.-This second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court dated 29.08.1985 as the first appellate Court reversed the Judgment and decree dated 18.08.1982 of dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff-respondent and decreed the suit of the plaintiff -respondent for injunction for the part of the property. The plaintiff -respondent also submitted cross-objection to challenge the dismissal of his suit for injunction for the property ABCD.

2. Brief facts of the case are that: the plaintiff filed the suit for prohibitory injunction for the two plots, one described as plot ABCD and another as EFGH. Both the plots were purchased by the plaintiff by registered sale-deeds, plot ABCD was purchased from Shanker Lal vide registered sale-deed (Exhibit-2) and plot EFGH was purchased from Banni Bai (Exhibit-1) Plot ABCD is having measurement 16 x18 whereas plot EFGH is 30x47. According to the plaintiff , all the four defendants are real brothers and they intended to encroach upon the plaintiff s plots and on 15.09.1972 forcibly put some stone-slabs in the portion of the plot shown in red colour in the plot ABCD and also collected material for raising construction over plot EFGH. The plaintiff immediately lodged complaint before the concerned police station on 20.09.1972. By the time of the filing of the suit, the defendants after putting stone-slabs, opened a door in plot ABCD. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction and also prayed that the plaintiff may be declared owner of the suit property and in case defendants succeed in taking possession of the said plots, the possession be delivered again the plaintiff .

3. The defendants submitted written statement denying the plaint allegations and submitted that so far as plot ABCD is concerned that plot is covered by the defendants Bapi-Patta and defendants old possession is there on the said land. For plot EFGH, it is submitted that the said plot was sold by Banni Devi and Pyari Bai to defendants in the Samvat Year 2022 for a consideration of Rs. 30/-and seller also executed sale-deed in favour of the defendants. The defendants denied the possession of the plaintiff over the plot in dispute. It appears that both the sellers Banni Devi and Shanker Lal were also impleaded as parties defendants in the suit. Banni Devi supported the defendants by admitting the sale in favour of the defendants of the Samvat Year 2022 whereas Shanker Lal submitted the written statement and admitted that he sold the plot to plaintiff on 210.1970. However, neither Banni Devi nor Shanker Lal gave evidence as defendants or as witness of any of the purchaser. The plaintiff produced witnesses PW. 1 Nensa, PW. 3 Pyare Lal, PW. 4 Mohan Lal and PW. 5 Chhoga Lal and also gave his own statement. The plaintiff produced the sale-deeds Exhibit-2 and Exhbiit-3 and also proved the sketch-map, in addition to other documents. The defendants produced witnesses DW. 1 Banshi Lal and DW. 3 Hangami Lal. The defendants also produced the alleged sale-deed Exhibit D-1 and map Exhibit D-3 and copy of one order Exhibit D-2 of Municipal Board, Deogarh. Other documents were also produced by the defendants.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff more because of the reason that in view of the trial Court, the plaintiff came with a case that he purchased the plot from Shanker Lal but did not produce Shanker Lal and other seller Banni Bai submitted written statement supporting the defendants and admitted the sale in favour of the defendants which is earlier in time and because of the reason that the plaintiff himself admitted that the defendants put some stone-slabs over the plot in dispute, therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove title and possession both. The Judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 18.08.1982 was challenged by the plaintiff by preferring regular first appeal. The first appellate Court after appreciation