Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court are not interfered with in second appeal unless based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence.

1. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) against the judgment and decree dated 6-9-1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala thereby dismissing Civil Appeal No. 60-P/XIII of 1993 against the judgment and decree dated 23-4-1993 passed by the learned Sub-Judge (1), Palampur, dismissing the suit of the appellants.

2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that Madho Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants 1(a) to 1(d) and appellant No. 2 instituted a suit for perpetual prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for mandatory injunction against the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). Case of the appellants, as made out in the plaint, is that they are the owners in possession of Abadi Deh land comprising Khasra No. 165 measuring 0-00-78 hectares situate in Mohal Kunsal Uperli, Mauza and Tehsil Baijnath. The respondent is the owner of the land adjacent to the said land and started interfering with the possession of the appellants in the land in suit by collecting material to raise construction on the suit land and also cut and removed some branches of Palm trees therefrom. In view of the threat of forcible dispossession by the respondent, suit was instituted claiming permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering in the possession of the appellants over the suit land and in the alternative for mandatory injunction for removal of the structure if the respondent succeeded in raising any construction over the suit land during the pendency of the suit.

3. The respondent contested the suit and filed written statement wherein he raised the preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable in the present form, that the appellants have no locus standi or cause of action against the respondent, that the appellants is estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct, that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction and the suit is bad for want of correct description of the suit land. On merits, it was denied that the appellants were the owners in possession of the suit land. It was claimed that the suit land was in possession of the respondent and had been acquired by the Public Works Department. It was further denied that the respondent had raised any construction over the suit land and it was claimed that he has started construction on land Khasra No.

164. Thus, the claim of the appellants has been denied in toto.

4. In the replication, the grounds of defence, as taken in the written statement, has been denied and the claim, as made out in the plaint, has been reaffirmed.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues;

1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the defendant has raised construction on the suit land during the pendency of the suit, if so, its effect? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether the defendant has raised construction in Khasra No. 164, if so, to what effect? OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD

9. Relief.

6. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 23-4-1993 held Issue No. 2 in favour of the appellants, Issue No. 1 was partly held in their favour whereas Issue No. 3 was held against them. Issue Nos. 4, 7 and 8 were decided against the respondent and Issue Nos. 5 and 6 were held in favour of the respondent and as a consequence the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved, predecessor-in-interest of appellants No. 1(a) to 1(d)