By the Court.—Heard Ms. Rama Goel Bansal learned counsel for appellant and Sri Iqbal Ahmad for respondent.

2. This appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CPC) has come up at the instance of defendant assailing judgment and decree dated 13.2.2004 and 26.2.2004 passed by Sri N.A. Zaidi, Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Moradabad decreeing Original Suit No. 43 of 2003 granting permanent injunction against defendant appellant restraining from interfering in property in dispute which was in possession of plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff Satendra Kumar Singh instituted Original Suit No. 43 of 2003 impleading Sri Amolak Singh defendant appellant as sole defendant setting up his case that property dated at the bottom of plaint was owned by late Ram Rakshpal Singh father of plaintiff in view of gift deed dated 22.2.1954 executed by Kunwar Jagannath Singh. Plaintiff’s father Ram Rakshpal Singh died on 23.9.1996 leaving his widow, five sons and three daughters as legal heirs. At the time of filing suit, widow of Ram Rakshpal Singh and two sons had also died. Both these sons were unmarried at the time of death. Three daughters of Ram Rakshpal Singh had married and were staying with in-laws, outside Moradabad City. Plaintiffs’ two other elder brothers with their family were residing at Varanasi and Haridwar. In the disputed house, plaintiff was residing alongwith his family and in some part thereof tenants were occupying the premises. No partition in respect to disputed property, owned earlier by late Ram Rakshpal Singh, has taken place between his legal heirs and entire property therefore, was in joint ownership of plaintiff and his brothers and sisters.

4. Defendant-appellant Amalok Singh was engaged in business of Real Estate and wants to purchase plaintiff’s property under undue coercive. Defendant, an active worker of Samajwadi Party and had political resources, on 13.1.2013, came to disputed property so as to forcibly evict plaintiff and his family members and caused law and order situation therein. However, due to neighbors calling and protest defendant could not succeed in his attempt. Defendant then pressurized plaintiff to execute a registered power of attorney in respect to vacant land which is part of disputed property which was denied by plaintiff. Plaintiff’s family consists of his wife and two minor children i.e. son aged about 12 years and daughter 14 years. Wife of plaintiff is a school teacher and children are also school going. Plaintiff used to visit different places in the context of his business and had serious apprehension that defendant may forcibly got possession of property in dispute. Hence, a suit for injunction was instituted by plaintiff respondent seeking permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering in possession of disputed property of plaintiff.

5. Suit was contested by defendant appellant vide written statement dated 18.7.2003 wherein he admitted that property was owned by late Ram Rakshpal Singh, who had already died. Thereafter property inherited by widow and eight children of Ram Rakshpal Singh. Widow and two sons of Ram Rakshpal Singh had died but two sons before death had executed an agreement of sale in favour of defendant. It is further admitted that three daughters of Ram Rakshpal Singh had already married and two sons were staying at Varanasi and Haridwar. In paragraph 6 of written statement defendant admitted that some part of disputed property was in possession of plaintiff and some part, in possession of tenants inducted by co-owners of property. It is also admitted in para 7 of written statement that there is/was no partition in respect to property, between legal heirs of Ram Rakshpal Singh, by metes and bounds.

6. In additional plea defendant appellant pleaded that three sons of Ram Rakshpal Singh namely Ashok Kumar Singh, Manoj Kumar Singh, Arvind Kumar Singh as also three daughters namely Smt. Kumud Singh, Smt. Ranjana Singh and