Challenge in this second appeal is to the judgement and decree dated 11.1.90 passed by XVth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Civil Appeal No. 445 of 87, Jhari versus Badal, by which lower appellate court has affirmed judgement and decree dated 31.7.87 passed by XI Additional Munsif , Allahabad in O.S. No. 268 of 1986 Badal versus Jhari, and thereby both the courts below have decreed plaintiff/ respondent's suit for permanent prohibitary injunction as against appellant/defendant and has affirmed the same.

2. In short plaintiff's case is that the suit property mentioned at the end of the plaint belonged solely to the plaintiff who is it's Bhumidhar and is in possession. Consolidation proceedings in the village, where suit property is situated has already been concluded and albeit defendants/ appellants have no concern with the said property, yet there are threatening to grab it and harvest the crops. The said threat was given on 9.3.86, which has given rise to cause of action to file suit for permanent prohibitary injunction.

3. Defendant appellants in their Written Statements denied plaintiff's case and pleaded that defendant no. 1 is the owner in possession over the suit property and rest of the defendants have nothing to do with it. Plaintiff has no concern with the suit property and the crop has also been sown by the defendant no.1. Badal @ Parabhu is the son of Suhan and his name was rightly recorded over suit property. After demise of Suhan name of defendant no. 1 was not mutated by the lekhpal and hence a mutation case was filed by defendant no.1 before Naib Tahsildar, Chayal, who, on 21.12.85, ordered for mutating the name of defendant appellant no.1 and accordingly his name was entered in the revenue records. Plaintiff is son of Hannoo and not Suhan nor his name is entered in revenue records. No question of hurling threats to plaintiff arises and during consolidation proceedings name of father of defendant no.1 Badal@Parabhu s/o Suhan was found to have been correctly recorded. No objection or case was filed by the plaintiff during consolidation proceedings and hence suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned Munsif framed six Issues of which Issue no.1was regarding jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit, Issue no.2 was as to whether plaintiff was the owner in possession of suit property, Issue no.3 and 4 were as to whether Badal s/o Hannoo and Badal s/o Suhan are the one and same person and if yes then what will be it's effect? Issue No.5 was as to whether defendant no.1 is the owner in possession of suit property and if yes then what will be it's effect?

5. On Issue no.1, question of jurisdiction, learned Munsif held vide order dated 2.2.87, that since the only relief for permanent prohibitary injunction has been sought in the suit and no relief under UPZA&LRAct has been claimed, therefore civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit, which order has also been affirmed by the lower appellate court in appeal. On Issues no. 3 learned Munsif held, vide judgement and decree dated 31.7.87, that both Badal s/o Hannoo and Badal s/o Suhan are one and the same person. For Issue No.4 it was decided that Badal and Parabhu are different persons and defendants had tried to create misunderstanding by mentioning alias name of their father as Badal and had endeavoured to dislodge plaintiff's case. Issues No. 2 &5 were jointly decided in favour of plaintiff against the defendants and it was held that defendant no.1 was never the owner and in possession over the suit property and in the Khasra name of plaintiff is recorded and he is the owner and in possession over it. Learned Munsif therefore decreed the suit and restrained the defendants appellants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over suit property plot no. 41, area 2 bighas,6 biswas, 16 Dhoor village patti Parvejabad, Nazarganj,Pargana & Tahsil Chayal, district Allahabad by issuing permanent prohibitary injunction.

6. Defendants/appell