MAIIK, CJ.: - This case was referred to a Full Bench of seven Judges by reason of a conflict between certain decisions of the Chief Court at Lucknow and a decision of a Full Bench of five Judges at Allahabad.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for joint possession over a Kothri marked in a plan attached to the plaint, for perpetual injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the said Kothri, for declaration of his right to build a Sahadra which had fallen down and for recovery of Rs.70/- the price of the plaintiffs share of the materials of the Sahadra which, it was alleged, had been misappropriated by defendants 1 and 2. The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2, and the other defendants were more or less pro forma.

3. The learned Munsif decreed the suit in part. On appeal by the defendants 1 and 2, the lower appellate Court set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs suit in its entirety. When the second appeal came up before a learned single Judge, he referred the case to a larger Bench.

4. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are members of the same family being descended from a common