( 1 ) THIS second appeal by the defendants came up before a learned single Judge of this Court and he has referred it to a Division Bench. It raises an interesting question of law as to whether the plaintiffs-respondents who claimed the disputed land as their private or family grave-yard would be entitled to seek relief for injunction when they are out of possession and when the defendants have been in possession and have made certain constructions over part of the land. The trial Court was of the opinion that that land is not a grave-yard and that in any event the present suit for injunction was not maintainable as the plaintiffs were clearly out of possession and they ought to have sought relief for possession, The lower appellate Court on the other hand, came to the conclusion that this was the family grave-yard of the plaintiffs and that for the protection of the graves from being desecrated which are thirty in number, the plaintiffs were entitled to a relief for injunction restraining the defendants from making in future any construction over this land. The lower appellate Court did not direct demolition of the constructions nor did it consider the question as to