Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.: - The present appellants are the legal representatives of defendant No.2 and they have filed the present regular second appeal to challenge the judgment and decree of First Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial Court.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction by pleading that he was owner in possession of an Industrial plot which was allotted to him by the Industry Department. On allotment of plot, the requisite amount was deposited and thereafter, the construction was also raised. However, adjoining to the plot of the plaintiff, there was a plot which was lying vacant. It was pleaded in the suit that the defendants wanted to take forcible possession of the said piece of land and a suit was filed restraining defendants from interfering in peaceful possession over 1048 square yards of land and from demolishing the boundary wall already constructed by the plaintiff-Mulakh Raj Bhandari. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a separate written statement. Defendant no.1 pleaded in his written statement that the construction was raised by the plaintiff without submitting any site plan and the same was liable to be demolished. Similarly, defendants No.2 and 3 also filed a joint written statement to the effect that no possession was ever delivered to the plaintiff regarding the area, in dispute as the khasra numbers as mentioned in the plaint were also disputed.

3. On perusal of evidence from both the sides, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 27.02.1985 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Panipat and the defendants were restrained from interfering in possession of plaintiff over 200 square yards of plot as the said plot was allotted by the Industry Department and no possession beyond 200 square yards can be delivered to the plaintiff. The judgment of the trial Court was challenged before the Additional District Judge, Karnal by way of filing an appeal which was accepted vide judgment dated 24.09.1985 by observing that the plaintiff shall not be dispossessed from the disputed site except in due course of law. It was also held that none of the parties shall raise construction over the disputed property to avoid further complication.

4. The present appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.2 which was admitted on 04.03.1986. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following substantial questions of law involved in the present appeal :-

“(i) Whether the injunction can be granted against a true owner, when admittedly plaintiff/respondent has no right, title or interest over the suit property ?

(ii)Admittedly the plaintiff was allotted 200 square yards of land by the Industries Department. Whether the plaintiff had any right to encroach upon the adjoining property which is owned and possessed by the defendants/appellants ?

(iii)Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court regarding possession of the suit property are perverse and based on no evidence and thus liable to be set aside ?

(iv)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court reversing the well considered judgment and decree of the trial Court, is sustainable in law as also on facts ?”

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the First Appellate Court has recorded a finding which is contrary to the evidence on record. A specific finding has been recorded by the trial Court, wherein, it has been established that the Director of Industries had allotted only 200 square yards of land adjoining to plot No.E-23. Learned counsel also submits that there is nothing on record to prove the possession of the plaintiff-respondents and the delivery of more than 200 square yards does not arise. As such, totally a different case has been made out by the First Appellate Court. Learned counsel further submits that the lower Appellate Court has failed to consider that no person can possess bett