The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for plaintiffs to prove ownership and possession of the property to be entitled to the decrees of prohibitory and mandatory injunction.

JUDGMENT

Amol Rattan Singh, J. - By this appeal, the defendants in the suit out of which it arises, have challenged the judgments of the learned trial Court as also the first appellant Court, decreeing the suit of respondents no.1 and 2 herein (the plaintiffs), by which they had sought a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction, restraining the present appellants from interfering in their peaceful possession of the suit property, which is shown to be a house bearing MC Unit no.L-739, fully described in the plaint, situated in Lohar Bazar, Bhiwani. The mandatory injunction sought was that the appellants herein be directed to remove the newly constructed wall described in the site plan that was led by way of evidence and also to remove the gate affixed in that wall, and to remove the idol installed in the open courtyard of the suit premises.

It is to be noticed here that though in the "heading" of the judgment of the trial Court, the suit is shown to be one seeking a declaration, learned counsel for the appellants before this Court, on specific query, has stated that the said nomenclature is a typographical error, with the suit actually being gone seeking prohibitory and mandatory injunctions.

2. It was the contention of the respondents-plaintiffs that they were otherwise residents of Bhiwani though presently residing at Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh, with the suit property owned by them and the proforma defendants (respondents no.3 to 6 herein), which was in their possession continuously without any interruption.

The suit property was stated to be previously owned by the mother-in-law of the first plaintiff, Rukmani Devi (grandmother of the second plaintiff and the proforma defendants). She is stated to have died on 03.02.1985, with the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants therefore having become owners in possession of the house, by way of natural succession. One Satnarain was stated to be a tenant occupying a bathroom and toilet even during the lifetime of Rukmani Devi, after which he was a tenant of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants, but had vacated the premises with the whole house therefore being owned by the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants, though they had all gone to Adilabad to earn their livelihood, but used to come to Bhiwani frequently.

3. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that the appellantsdefendants were not law abiding persons and wanted to enter the house without any right; and had used filthy language and had scuffled with the plaintiffs one week prior to the institution of the suit (instituted on 08.12.2010), and had also tried to take possession illegally and to change the nature of the property.

It was further contended that during the pendency of the case they had constructed a wall to the North-East of the property, as described in the site plan led by way of evidence, and had also affixed a gate in that wall and closed the access of the plaintiffs to the house, with an idol also "laid" in the open courtyard, which after the institution of the suit, in any case they had no right to do.

4. Upon notice issued to them, the appellants as also their codefendants (the remaining three contesting defendants not having filed the present appeal), filed a written statement as also a counter claim stating that the plaintiffs had actually no locus standi to file the suit, with them having concealed facts from the court, such facts being that a public temple stood on the suit property, with which Rukmani Devi or her legal heirs were not in any way concerned and as such, the plaintiffs only wanted to create disturbance in the worship offered by the defendants in the temple and that actually the plaintiffs wanted to sell the suit property.

5. They also alleged in the counter claim that they (the said defendants) were residents of Tiyana Pana, Bhiwani, and since the time of their ancestors they