Having failed in both the courts below, the defendants have preferred this second appeal. The suit by the respondents plaintiffs is for an injunction against possession interference in respect of the vacant portion of the suit property, of an extent of 600 sq.ft. out of the total extent of 1,767 sq.ft. of the entire suit property. The plaintiffs claimed title and possession under Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 110. 1989 from the 3rd defendant.

2. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants, is that the courts below have not considered the title secured by the defendants to the abovesaid 600 sq.ft. by adverse possession as found in an earlier proceeding, whose judgment dated 12. 1984 is marked as Ex.B-4.

3. But, first of all it must be noted that the plaintiffs were not parties to the said earlier proceeding. That apart, the lower appellate court specifically finds that in Ex.B-4 the abovesaid 600 sq.ft. vacant site has not been referred to and the said fact is also admitted by D.W.I, the 1st defendant. The lower appellate court also finds that in Ex.B-4, there is nothing to show that the above said 600 sq.ft vacant site belongs to the appellants. I also find from