JUDGMENT :

1. This is a defendants’ Second Appeal, arising from a Suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction.

2. Mihi Lal, the sole plaintiff-respondent (for short, ‘the plaintiff’) instituted Original Suit no.475 of 1975 in the Court of the Munsif East, Ballia on 02.12.1975, praying that a mandatory injunction be granted, commanding the defendants first set to remove their encroachments, comprising a tin-shed and some other structures, described as a ‘Palani’, both denoted by numericals in the plaint map, besides cattle troughs and tethers, denoted by letter N, as also brick-blocks to their water drain, denoted by letters p] N] t] > all done in a part of their sehan to the east of their house. Also, constructions located to the east of their house, in a part of their sehan, denoted by letters 2, 3’, 6, 7, may be ordered to be removed; all to be done within a specified period of time, as may be stipulated by the Court. In the event of breach, the same may be ordered to be removed through process of the Court. A relief for permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought to the effect that an injunction be granted in favour the plaintiff and the defendant second set, forbidding the defendants first set from interfering in the possession over their eastern sehan (courtyard), denoted by letters 2, 3’, 6, 7, as shown in the plaint map, or any part thereof by digging up a foundation, or raising constructions, or damaging or demolishing their troughs and cattle tethers, or blocking the flow of their water drains, both rain water and ordinary drainage, or blocking the incoming sunlight and air through their windows, in the east of their house, denoted by letters d [k x ?k, or otherwise interfering with their possession over land denoted by figures 2, 3’, 6, 7, as shown in the plaint map. There is an alternate relief for possession as well, praying that if the plaintiff and the defendant second set be found to have been dispossessed from any part of the suit property, a decree for possession be passed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant second set and against the defendants first set.

3. A better description of the parties to the Suit, who are now parties to the Appeal, would be gainful. As already said, Mihi Lal is the sole plaintiff. He is the plaintiff-respondent no.1 to this Appeal. He is now dead and represented on record by his heirs and legal representatives in the present Appeal.

4. Badan Singh, Jangi Singh, both sons of Ganga Bishun Singh, Dhan Dayal Singh and Fateh Bahadur Singh, both sons of Jangi Singh, are the defendants first set to the Suit. They are the four contesting defendants. Of the four contesting defendants, Badan Singh, Jangi Singh and Dhan Dayal Singh, have preferred the instant Second Appeal. The fourth contesting defendant, Fateh Bahadur Singh has been impleaded as defendant-respondent no.5 to this Appeal. The defendants-appellants, Badan Singh and Jangi Singh are now dead and represented on record by their LRs. Likewise, defendant-respondent no.5, Fateh Bahadur Singh is also dead and represented on record by his LRs. Thus, of the four original contesting defendants-respondents, which includes the three appellants, three are dead and represented here by their LRs. Contesting defendant, Dhan Dayal Singh, who is defendant-appellant no.3 to this Appeal, survives. The three defendants-appellants and defendant-respondent no.5, shall hereinafter collectively be referred to as the contesting defendants. This reference includes their LRs.

5. Jag Lal, Parasu Ram, both sons of Raja Ram and Radha Kishun, son of Nawab, were the three defendants second set to the Suit, or so to speak the proforma defendants. Proforma defendants, Jag Lal, Parasu Ram and Radha Kishun, are impleaded as defendants-respondents to this Appeal. Of them, Jag Lal and Radha Kishun are dead and represented in this Appeal by their LRs. Defendants second set to the Suit, who are respondents nos.2, 3 & 4 to this Appeal, shall hereinafter coll