JUDGMENT :

1. This judgment will decide Second Appeal No.108 of 2008 and Second Appeal No.26 of 2020, both of which arise out of the same suit. The Trial Court decided the suit by the same judgment, leading to a single appeal from the original decree by one of the defendants. The judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court has left both the plaintiffs and the defendants dissatisfied, leading to these two appeals, arising out of the appellate decree.

2. Original Suit No.389 of 1986 was instituted on 14.11.1986 by Kanchan Singh and Man Singh, both sons of Babu Lal in the ex-Court of the Civil Judge, Mathura (now Civil Judge, Senior Division) against seven defendants, shortly to be specified.

3. By the said suit, the plaintiffs sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' title or possession in Khasra No.216, admeasuring -61 decimals, Khewat No.1, situate at Villate Neelkanth, District Mathura, or on the basis of rights created amongst themselves from demolishing (any construction) or digging up a foundation on the said property and constructing anything thereon or interfere with the plaintiffs raising a boundary wall around the said property, and further forbear from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession in any manner or take possession of the property themselves.

4. The defendants to the suit are the Town Area Committee, Sadabad through its Officer In-charge. The Town Area Committee aforesaid was then included in the district of Mathura, but is now part of District Hathras. The District Magistrate, Mathura is the second defendant to the suit, whereas the third defendant is the Government of Uttar Pradesh, represented by the Collector, Mathura. The fourth defendant to the suit was the Station House Officer, P.S. Sadabad, District Mathura (now District Hathras). The fifth defendant to the suit was the Superintendent of Police, Mathura. The sixth defendant was the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the last defendant was the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Range, Agra.

5. It may be mentioned at the outset that though pending suit, many of the defendants would have changed, because Town Sadabad came to be included in the district of Hathras, but the suit was contested by defendant Nos.1 and 4 alone, who put in their written statements and led evidence. The other defendants did not file any written statement or otherwise contest. After the reverse in the Trial Court suffered by the defendants, it was defendant No.1 alone, which appealed the original decree to the District Judge, and loosing there, has carried Second Appeal No.108 of 2008. Defendant No.4 gave up contest after the Trial Court's judgment.

6. In Second Appeal No.108 of 2008, which is being treated the leading case, the Town Area Committee, Sadabad, District Mathura through its Officer In-charge/ Chairman, is the sole defendant-appellant. Hereinafter, the defendant-appellant shall be referred to as defendant No.1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to this appeal are the plaintiffs. The other defendants to the suit in the present appeal are arrayed as defendant-respondent Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and described as defendant/ proforma respondents. The said defendants shall be called hereinafter as defendant Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 for the ease of reference.

7. In Second Appeal No.26 of 2020, Kanchan Singh and Man Singh are the two plaintiff-appellants and respondent Nos.1 to 7 are defendant Nos.1 to 7 in the suit. Kanchan Singh died pending Second Appeal No.108 of 2008 and before Second Appeal No.26 of 2020 was instituted. Both the plaintiff are now represented on record by their heirs and LRs, who have contested and pursued these appeals, representing the plaintiffs' interest. For the ease of reference, therefore, the plaintiffs shall be referred to as 'the plaintiffs', wherever there is a collective reference and should individual reference be necessary,