JUDGMENT :

This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction.

2. This appeal was admitted to hearing on 1st of April, 1997 on the sole substantial question of law, to wit: "Whether on the basis of positive averments in the written statement of the defendants that they were owner of the suit property on the basis of the Will and were in possession of the suit property as against the plaintiff's case of the title and possession, lower appellate Court should have dismissed the suit on the mere ground of absence of cause of action?"

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these:

Ram Singh instituted Original Suit No. 494 of 1992 in the Court of the Munsif, Rampur against Amar Singh and six other defendants, seeking relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the defendants, their servants and agents be restrained from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property comprising Plot Nos. 82 and 190 or interfering in his possession in any manner whatsoever. Amar Singh, defendant No. 1 is the plaintiff's father's brother, whereas other defendants are said to be his father's brother's sons. The plaintiff-appellant, Amar Singh, who shall hereinafter be called ''the plaintiff', was a young man of 20 years, when he instituted the suit. His father, Kunwar Sen passed away after a brief illness on 13th of January, 1990. He was otherwise fit and healthy and aged about 50 years at the time of his demise. The plaintiff's father was the bhumidhar in possession of Plot No. 82, admeasuring 0.097 hectare and Plot No. 190, admeasuring 0.507 hectare, situate at Village Sendu Kaa Majra, Tehsil Swar, District Rampur. The said property shall hereinafter be called ''the suit property'.

4. Upon the sudden death of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff was left all alone, his mother having pre-deceased his father. The suit property, in consequence of his father's death, devolved upon the plaintiff and his name was recorded in the revenue records on 05.02.1990 by intestate succession. The plaintiff, thus, became bhumidhar in possession of the suit property.

5. It is the plaintiff's case that defendant No.1, his father's brother and the other defendants, his cousins, are vicious men, who harbour foul intentions. The defendants, without any right, foster the desire to take possession of the suit property, harm the plaintiff, posing a threat to his life and property. The defendants' intention is to usurp the plaintiff's property. It is the plaintiff's case that the defendants have no title, interest or share in the said property nor are they in possession thereof. The defendants allege some kind of a right to the suit property on the basis of a Will. After the demise of the plaintiff's father, the defendants in order to harm the plaintiff, have secured some bogus and fictitious Will, purportedly executed by the plaintiff's father in the defendants' favour.

6. It is the plaintiff's case that his father was in good health and died after a brief illness. The Will attributing to him a testamentary disposition is the product of forgery. It is void. It has no binding effect upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the only son and the sole heir entitled to inherit his father's estate.

7. According to the plaint case, the defendants, without any right and in breach of the law, on 21.07.1992 attempted to forcibly trespass into the suit property and endeavoured to till it. They wanted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff, but with the aid of third parties, the plaintiff repelled the attempted encroachment by the defendants. The defendants, however, went away extending death threats as also threats about forcibly taking possession of the suit property. It is then averred that in the event the defendants succeed in forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff, he would suffer irreparable loss and injury. The defendants, upon the plaintiff's efforts to amicably settle the matter, have declined, forcing the plainti