Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Plaintiff-Ajit Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the suit property shown in red colour was owned by the plaintiff. Plaintiff was a carpenter by profession and was in possession of the suit property as owner. The defendants were threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by opening windows, ventilators, doors and parnalas.

3. Defendant No.1 did not oppose the claim of the plaintiff and consequently the suit qua defendant No.1 was dismissed as withdrawn.

4. Defendant No.2, on the other hand, averred that he was owner in possession of the suit property. The site plain, produced by the plaintiff, was not correct. Some part of the property had been purchased by defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 29.5.1972 executed by Swarna while some part of the suit property was his ancestral property.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as alleged ? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not maint