JUDGMENT :

1. This is a plaintiffs’ appeal, who had a vacillating fortune before the Courts below in a suit instituted for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction.

2. Original Suit No. 455 of 1984 was instituted by Ram Karan son of Ishwar Dutt Tripathi and Dadhich Chand son of Ram Karan against Uma Shanker and Paras Nath on 08.08.1984, claiming a permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession in part of their abadi and Sahan (Courtyard), denoted by letters C D E M in the plaint map or disturbing the Neem tree standing there.

3. The two plaintiffs were the original appellants here. Of them, Ram Karan died pending appeal and is represented on record by his heirs and LRs, who are appellant nos. 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6 and 1/7. Appellant no. 1/3 is on record as appellant no.2. All the appellants shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’. However, in case of individual reference, the concerned plaintiff shall be referred to by his name. The two defendants to the suit, Uma Shanker and Paras Nath were in the same order arrayed as respondent nos. 1 and 2 to this appeal. Both the defendant-respondents have died pending appeal and are represented on record by their heirs and LRs, as entered in the cause title of the appeal. Any reference hereinafter to the two defendant-respondents collectively shall be as ‘the defendants’, but in case of individual reference, Uma Shanker, defendant no. 1, now represented by his LRs, shall be referred to as ‘Uma Shanker’. Likewise, Paras Nath, defendant no. 2, now represented by his LRs, in case of individual reference, shall be referred to by his name.

4. The plaintiffs’ case is that their ancestral house, the present house that they live in, stands over the site it has been and also over the site to its north, where the house of Shri Narain stood and that their door has always been oriented both to the west and the north. Also, their Sahan (Courtyard) has existed both to the north and the west of their house. To the south-west stands Uma Shanker’s abadi. Westward of Uma Shanker’s abadi, the plaintiffs’ Sahan extends up to the houses of Jamuna, Udairaj and Khaderan. It is the plaintiffs’ case that the entirety of their property, which they have referred to as abadi, is denoted in the plaint map by letters A B C D E F A.

5. It is also the plaintiffs’ case that Krishnadev, a collateral, sold his share in their favour, whereas another collateral Shri Narain entered into a compromise with them. In consequence, the property shown by letters A B C D E F A came to the plaintiffs’ exclusive ownership and possession. The plaintiffs have been using the aforementioned property for their residence and the household establishment over time. The aforesaid property includes the plaintiffs’ house, Dalan (verandah), and Neem trees. It is said that the various activities of living, associated with the rural way of life went about for the plaintiffs in this property. It is particularly said that for the past 23 years, the cattle, that were tethered over a part of the said property, have been moved to another place by the plaintiffs, but they have complete dominion and use of the suit property, denoted by letters C D E M. A Neem tree stands over the said land. The part of the property denoted by letters C D E M shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the suit property’.

6. It is also the plaintiffs’ case that Uma Shanker’s property is located to the east of the line ED and which has a higher elevation compared to the suit property. The defendants’ house was earlier a kachcha construction, which in course of time, they have demolished and replaced by a pucca house, comprising just two rooms, secured by an enclosure (Hata). To the south of a part of the suit property is located one Shiv Murat Tiwari’s abadi, in the southern part whereof, Shiv Murat has his house. Shiv Murat Tiwari has sold off his house and abadi to