( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) IT will be worthwhile to mention here a few facts about the case. It appears from the plaint allegations that the plaintiffs/appellants, on the basis of patta in their favour which was issued in the Samwat year 1939, filed a suit for injunction against Pokar Mal, ami Chand, Shyam Lal, Mangi Lal and Municipal Board, Nohar which was decreed by the trial Court on 1-4-1977 restraining the municipal Board, Nohar from allotting any land out of pattasud land of the plaintiffs. However, despite this decree, according to the plaintiffs, said Pokar Mal, Ami Chand, shyam Lal and Mangi Lal encroached upon part of the plaintiffs land and according to the plaintiffs, for this, the Municipal Board, nohar helped those persons in encroaching upon the plaintiffs land, therefore, the plaintiffs submitted execution petition against the above mentioned persons. The present defendant Satya Narayan, who was not party in the earlier suit, also encroached upon 300 square yards land of the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for possession against Satya Narayan because of the fact that Satya Narayan was not party in the earlier sui