Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Satyendra, Advocate, for appellants and Sri Anil Sharma, Advocate, for respondents.

2. This is defendants’ appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) arising from judgment and decree dated 18.9.1999 and 25.9.1999 respectively passed by Sri R.P. Mishra, Judge, Small Causes/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur in Civil Appeal No. 202 of 1991 whereby Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as “LAC”) has allowed plaintiff-respondent’s appeal, set aside Trial Court’s judgment dated 23.10.1991 and decreed the suit by directing defendants-appellants to remove construction shown in Amin’s report 78Ga and Map 79Ga with alphabets ^^v c l n^^ within three months and hand over possession of land to plaintiff-respondent failing which plaintiff shall be entitled for delivery of possession through Court.

3. Plaintiff, Chhakauri Ram Gupta, son of Ram Lal Gupta instituted Original Suit No. 507 of 1983 vide plaint dated 16.3.1983 in the Court of Additional Munsif’-I, Gorakhpur, praying for grant of mandatory injunction directing defendants-appellants not to interfere in the possession of plaintiff on the disputed land, shown in the map, at the bottom of plaint, as ^v c l n^ and also refrain them from dispossessing plaintiff from the said land.

4. The facts pleaded in the aforesaid plaint, as filed initially, are that plaintiff is owner of Arazi Bhumidhari No. 125, area one acre 26 dismal, situate at Mauza Mudila Urf Mundera, Tappa Khuthan, Pergana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur alongwith Munni Lal, Govardhan and Jitai and in possession thereof as bhumidhar. Govardhan and Jitai transferred their entire share, and, Munni Lal some part of his share to plaintiff vide sale-deed dated 26.5.1970. Munni Lal also subsequently transferred his entire share of disputed property in favour of plaintiff vide sale-deed dated 14.6.1971. In the revenue record, disputed land was registered in the name of plaintiff bearing No. 125/1-183. Petitioner got land surrounded by a brick boundary and also raised temporary construction, i.e. Marai.

5. Defendants’ father Badri was also co-sharer in disputed arazi but had no interest in the land marked as ^^v c l n^^ in the map. He (Sri Badri) had constructed a house about 7-8 years back which is shown in the map as ^^; j y o^^

6. The map placed at bottom of plaint read as under:

c			l
>ksiM+h Qwl o fVu		tehu oknh	tehu ijkx
			c	Q
			tehu gjh yky
v	edku f+=yksd		n	i
J			y
edku cnzh (defendants’ father)
;			o

7. There was another co-sharer Hari Lal whose part of share in the aforesaid arazi is shown in map as ^^i Q c n^^ . Sri Hari Lal sold his share in the aforesaid property, i.e., ^^i Q c n^^ to defendants on 2.8.1977.

8. With the passage of time, there was large scale development in nearby area of disputed land as a result whereof defendants with intention to encroach over disputed land belong to plaintiff, made several attempts to take possession thereof but having failed to do so, they got a suit filed by former co-sharer Munni Lal, numbered as 129 of 1982, for cancellation of sale-deed. An injunction application was also filed but Court rejected the same on 15.2.1983. Thereafter defendants in furtherance of their misdeed of encroaching upon the land of plaintiff, visited the premises alongwith several unsocial elements on 15.3.1983 but due to village people having collected and opposed them, could not succeed in their attempt but threatened plaintiff that very soon they would occupy the disputed land. It is in these circumstances, aforesaid suit seeking a decree of injunction was filed.

9. Defendants filed a collective written statement dated 2.2.1983 stating that Arazi No. 125 area 1.26 dismal was in the co-t