Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This second appeal is by the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction for demolition of a wall against the respondents. His suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal which was also dismissed.

2. The plaintiff’s case, as mentioned in the plaint, is that the plaintiff and some of the defendants are descendents of a common ancestor Ramcharan Shukla. The dispute arose between the parties in respect of Plot No. 297/1 (for short, “the suit property”). It is stated that the defendant No. 6 Ishnarain had one-third share in the suit property and the share of the plaintiff’s father Jaynarain was two-third. After the death of Jaynarain his sons Pratap Narain, Chandrabhushan and the plaintiff have two-third share. It is stated that the plaintiff, respondent No. 6 and his brothers are seerdar of the suit property. The brothers of the plaintiff, namely, Pratap Narain and Chandrabhushan have deposited ten times lagaan in respect of 4/9 share and have got bhumidhari certificate. Thus, their share was separated in respect of their share (4/9 share). The plaintiff and the defendant No. 6 wer