This appeal by the defendants arises in the following circumstances. The plaintiffs respondents filed the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the alleged sahan land marked by letters GLMND in the plan given at the foot of the plaint and not to demolish any constructions of the plaintiffs existing on the said land and not to fix any door or window opening towards the said land. They also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 25/- on account of the alleged demolition of a wall shown by letters XY in the site plan. The allegations of the plaintiff were that they were the owners in possession of the said land GLMND which was their sahan land and that they had their cattle troughs, pegs, kolhu and trees on the said land. They had also their wall at the place XY which was illegally demolished by the defendants. They alleged that the defendants had no right, title or interest in any part of the said land and were not entitled to use the same in any manner whatsoever.

2. The suit is resisted by the defendants on a variety of grounds. They alleged, inter alia, that they had built their house in their agricultural plots of land and had been using the land in dispute lying towards the west of their house as sahan. They denied that the land in dispute was the sahan of the plaintiffs. They further denied that they had demolished the alleged wall at the place XY. They claimed that the cattle troughs, pegs, trees and the alleged kplhu belonged to them and not to the plaintiffs. They also raised the plea that the suit was barred by time and also by the principles of estoppel.

3. On the motion of the plaintiffs the trial court granted a temporary injunction against the defendants and also issued a commission with the direction to visit the spot, to prepare a map on scale of the plaintiffs house, the land in suit and to show if there existed any construction over it. The commissioner was also directed to mark the place where the plaintiffs alleged their demolished constructions existed. Pursuant to this order the commissioner visited the spot, prepared a site plan paper No. 66 Ka Al and submitted his report 14-C.

4. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed as many as eight issues. Both the parties to the suit adduced oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. On a consideration of the evidence on record the trial court held that the suit land was neither the sahan land of the plaintiffs nor was it appurtenant to the plaintiffs house and that it had not vested, in the plaintiffs. It also held that the defendant had not taken permission in respect of the sahan land from the zamindar and they had no interest in it. It, however, held that the defendants had demolished, the wall of the plaintiffs SY and were liable to pay Rs. 25/- as damages. The pleas with regard to limitation and estoppel were repelled. On these findings the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by that decision the plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The appellate court below relying on the observations of the commissioner and his report that the houses of the defendants were of recent constructions and the chabutra of the defendants was quite new as also on circumstance that the defendants had their ancestral house at another place in the village while the plaintiffs had no other house except the house in which they were living and which adjoined the land in suit and that the situation of the house of the two parties in relation to the land in dispute showed that the land in suit could not have been used by the defendants reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court and held that the plaintiffs case of using the land in dispute as their sahan darwaza was clearly proved as against the defendants. The appellate court below also held that the plaintiffs had exceeded their rights in making the wall on other persons land and were, therefore, not entitled to