Ramchandra Singh Jhala, J.

1. The instant second appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.4.2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ganganagar in Appeal (Decree) No. 11/1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court') whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 3.3.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Suratgarh, District Sri. Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 43/89 was confirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff deceased Mohan Lal (father of respondents No. 1 and 2 and husband of respondent No. 3) filed a suit for permanent injunction stating therein that he has a plot measuring 825 sq. fts. situated at Bikaner Road which is pattasud land and when he started construction over the said land, the appellant-defendant interrupted in construction, therefore, the late Mohan Lal filed a suit to restrain the appellant-defendants from interfering in the construction work.

3. The appellant-defendant filed written statements wherein they denied all the facts of the plaint and it is stated that the land in question was a part of the PWD land and since the construction raised by the plaintiffs was unauthorised, the same was rightly removed. It is also stated that upon the said land, residential houses of IIIrd grade were constructed and for the same lay out plan had been sanctioned by the Deputy Town Planner on 10.9.1976. The plaintiffs were never in possession of the said land. Earlier also encroachment was made over the said land by the respondent-plaintiffs, but the same was removed by the competent authority, however, due to holidays on 8.10.1989 to 10.10.1989, the plaintiff Mohan Lal raised unauthorised occupation which was rightly demolished and prayed to dismiss the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:-

¼1½ vk;k IykV la[;k&37 bZ tks oknh dks vkaofVr Fkk] xSaxgV foJke x`g oŒlkŒfuŒfoŒ DokVjksa ds chp iM+rh gS blfy;s dCtk ugha fn;k x;kA

¼2½ vk;k oknh us tks rkehj btktr izkIr dh gS og uxjikfydk dks /kks[kk nsdj izkIr dh gSa vxj ,slk gS rks mldk okn ij D;k vlj gS\

¼3½ vk;k oknh ds IykV ij ml }kjk fd;s fuekZ.k dks izfroknh }kjk rksM+ nsus ds dkj.k oknh dk okn gks x;k gS vkSj og fpj fu"ks/kkKk ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

¼4½ vk;k oknh fpj fu"ks/kkKk bl vej dk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd izfroknh mlds iV~Vk'kqnk Hkw[kaM+ ij nhokj cukdj ;k vU; fdlh rjg ls O;o/kku mRiUu u djs\

¼5½ vuqrks"k\

5. Vide judgment and decree dated 3.3.1999, the learned trial court decided all the issues in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs and appellant-defendants were restrained from interfering in the construction which was being raised by the respondent-plaintiffs. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 3.3.1999, the appellant-defendants filed appeal before the learned first appellate court, who dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 21.4.2000.

6. Being aggrieved with the said judgments and decrees of both the courts below, the appellant-defendant has preferred the present second appeal before this Court.

7. This Court on 28.3.2006 while admitting the instant second appeal framed the following substantial questions of law:-

"(1) Whether the trial court committed serious error of law by framing issue regarding the plaintiff's title despite the fact that the defendants categorically in para No. 11 of the written statement denied the title of the plaintiff and also pleaded the specific fact that the land was reserved for some government building?

(2) Whether the courts below committed error of law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in the facts of the case particularly in view of the defence that the construction of the pl