( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal arising cut of a suit for injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from cultivating the plot in suit and from integer-ing with its use by the appellants and other members of the village community as a marghat (cremation ground ). The suit was brought under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. , on the allegation that plot No. 3270-B, area 4. 27 acres, situate in village Rampur Raja, district Etah, was a cremation ground and it had been used as such since time immemorial. It was alleged that the defendant-respondents Nos. 1 to 4 had obtained, leases of the land in suit from the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and had started cultivating a portion of the land for some time prior to the institution of the suit. It was contended that, the Gaon Sabha or the landlord had no right to grant the lesse with respect to the land in suit and such grant of lease was void. It was further alleged that the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 were cultivating the land in suit which would interfere with the rights of the appellants.

( 2 ) THE suit was contested by the respondents Nos. 1 to 6. They admitted having taken the leases and alleged that they were cultivating the land in suit. They denied that the land in suit was ever a cremation ground and contended that it was never used as such, that the appellants had no right to cremate dead bodies on the plot in suit, and that there was never any marghat in village Raja ka Rampur. It was stated that the respondents had taken a lease of a portion of the plot in suit in 1355 Fasli from the Court of Wards and another lease in 1359 Fasli from the Court of Wards and the last lease had been taken in 1360 fasli from the Gram Sabha and they had been cultivating the land, in suit since 1355 Fasli and were in possession thereof. It was also alleged that an area of 1. 37 acres of the plot in suit was still lying vacant and it was sufficient for the purposes of cremation. Lastly, it was contended that the suit for mere injunction was not maintainable.

( 3 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, the Court below affirmed the finding of the trial court that the plot in suit was Used as a cremation ground. It was found that the appellants and other residents of the village had acquired a customary right to use the entire plot as a cremation ground, although this right could not be supported on the ground of dedication or lost grant. The court below, however, dismissed the suit on the ground that the provisions of Section 56 (i) of the Specific Relief Act were attracted and the relief of injunction claimed by the appellants could not be granted because they had not asked for possession of the land in suit. The plaintiffs have now come to this Court in second appeal.

( 4 ) THE first question for consideration, therefore, is whether it was necessary for the appellants to ask for possession of the land in suit. The Court below expressed the view that since a relief for possession had not been asked for, the appellants were not entitled to the grant of injunction as had been prayed for by them. The question whether it was necessary for the appellants to ask for possession must depend on the circumstances of the case and the necessary relief which must be asked for by the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs were in possession of any property and have been ousted therefrom and have claimed an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the exercise of their possession, then in such a suit it is obvious that the. mere relief of injunction could not be granted because the plaintiffs being the owner of the land and having been dispossessed must ask for possession. In the present case, the appellants did not claim any title to the land in suit as owners or as persons possessing it. The members of the village community are only interested in the land in suit for the limited purpose of cremating the dead. It may be immaterial as to who is the owner of the land or who is in possession thereof so