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 were the co-sharers in respect of remaing portion. The plaintiff has further stated that there was a partition among the plaintiff, his brothers and the defendant No. 6. In respect of the said partition Pratap Narain and Chandrabhushan have got their share towards south and the plaintiff got his share in respect of 9 dismal towards east and the defendant No. 6 got his share towards the west side. The plaintiff is in possession of his share. Chandrabhushan has transferred his share to the wife of Pratap Narain. Pratap Narain and his wife have transferred about 2 dismal land to Ishnarain, the defendant No. 6.

3. Later, Ishnarain had sold the said property to Rajesh and Sangeeta and there is no dispute regarding the said property. Pratap Narain, who got 9 dismal share, has also transferred it to defendant Nos. 13 and 14.

4. The cause of action arose in August, 1993 regarding the area shown in the plaint map ‘P.Q.M.N.’ when the defendants refused to get the suit property measured and claimed that the defendant No. 6 has transferred the suit property in their favour and forcibly tried to raise the construction over the suit property.

5. The defendants contested the suit by filing their separate W.S.. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 took the stand that the suit property No. 297/1 area 93 are was owned by Ishnarain, and the defendant No. 6 has executed sale-deed on 4.5.1993 in their favour in respect of 1210 square feet. The names of vendees have been mutated in the revenue records. After the the sale-deed they have raised an eight feet boundary wall and the plaintiff has no concern with the said land.

6. The defendant Nos. 6 and 7 in their W.S. have denied the plaintiff’s case. Their stand is that the suit property is within the limit of Nagar Palika Parishad, where the zamindari in the municipal limit was abolished on 1.7.1965. The suit property was the ancestral property and their common ancestor Ramcharan Shukla was the owner of the said property and after his death an oral family partition had taken place among defendant No. 6 and his cousin Harinarain and Jaynarain. According to the said partition one-third share was allotted to Beni Madhav. The share of Beni Madhav was given to defendant No. 6 and other half share to Harinarain and Jaynarain. The total shares of the respective parties have been mentioned in the W.S.

7. It is also stated that the defendant No. 6 has transferred some portion 2-3/8 in favour of the defendant No. 1 by sale-deed dated 4.5.1993 and 5 dismal area was transferred by him on 31.3.1983 to the defendant No. 10. Now the vendees are in possession as bhumidhar and they have raised construction also. Rest portion 13-1/8 is of the defendant No. 6. The defendant No. 6 is in possession of remaining 4 dismal of the land.

8. It is stated that un