Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—This Second Appeal arises out of O.S. No. 28 of 1976 for mandatory injunction to remove constructions raised by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on the land in dispute and for pendente lite and future damages. The suit was dismissed with costs by IVth Civil Judge, Varanasi on 30.3.1977. The Civil Appeal No. 629 of 1977 was allowed decreeing the suit on 17.11.1978.

2. I have heard Shri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the appellants. No one appears for the respondents.

3. The suit was filed with the allegations that Smt. Nauvjaddi Kunwar-defendant No. 1 purchased the land from several persons in village Karaudi Pargana Dehat Amanat District Varanasi for establishing a residential colony. She divided the land in various plots for construction of residential houses. Some portions of the land were reserved for road and park. A lay out plan was prepared in which the land reserved for park was demarcated and delineated with ‘red’ and ‘blue’ hatched lines. The park and road were meant for exclusive use of the residents of the colony named as ‘Nand Nagar Colony’. The plaintiffs, most of whom, are teachers in Banaras Hindu University, purchased the plots and constructed their houses. The defendant No. 1 agreed and assured the purchasers of the plots that the land earmarked for road and park and other beneficial purposes will be jointly used by the residents of the colony and that the defendant No. 1 will not deal with them. In case of breach, the residents were entitled to enforce these rights. The plaintiff and other persons purchased the plots on this assurance and agreement.

4. It was further averred that the defendant No. 1, also constructed a well and fitted an electric pump and water pipe lines for supply of water to the residents. The well was constructed on a part of the land reserved for park with a small room in which an electric meter was installed. A portion of the park was enclosed by the boundary wall on eastern and southern sides and some trees were planted on it. The gates were put on both the sides and the children of the residents of the colony used the park for play ground. Few days before filing of the suit the defendant No. 4 started constructions on the land of the park and started raising boundary wall. The defendant No. 4 informed the plaintiffs that defendant No. 2, the general attorney of defendant No. 1, had sold the land to his wife defendant No. 3, and that he was authorised to raise constructions. The defendant No. 4 did not stop constructions even after he was told that the land was reserved for park giving cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit.

5. The defendant No. 2 did not contest the suit. The defendant Nos. 3 and 5 filed joint written statements. They pleaded that the disputed land is not identifiable in the map and that the boundaries at the foot of plaint were wrong. The defendant No. 1 was original owner of the land in plot Nos. 216 and 221. She had sold it to several persons after sub-division without apportioning any land for park or preparing any lay out plan. A plan annexed to the plaint is fictitious. They denied of any assurance given to the plaintiffs regarding reserving the park for the residents of the colony. There are no trees at the disputed land, except a mango tree. The other mango tree is on the other portion of the colony. A portion of settlement of plot 205 is sought to be included in the disputed land which, in fact, was not in the ownership of defendant No. 1 and was owned by Mst. Dulari and Triveni Singh. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had no knowledge of the existence of the park. There was an agreement between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 for purchasing plot No. 21 situate in settlement plot No. 215 but since litigation was pending, the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 got the sale-deed of the land C.D.G.H. executed by the defendant No. 1, and have constructed boundary wall on 2.1.1976. The plaintiff himself told defend