This appeal, preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27-02-1990, passed by the then District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Original Suit No. 37 of 1983, whereby the said trial court decreed the plaintiffs’ suit for mandatory as well as the prohibitory injunction.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire lower court record.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff / respondent instituted Suit No. 37 of 1983, before the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal with the pleadings that he is owner of the building known as ‘OLD POWER HOUSE’ and land appurtenant thereto situated in Narendra Nagar, shown in the plaint map. The said building and land in suit were declared to be owned by the plaintiff by State of Uttar Pradesh vide its Government Order No. 308-B/III-37 F/58 dated 13.05.1960, as has been shown at Sl. No. 20 of the ‘Properties of His Highness’. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant No. 1 through its contractor (defendant No. 5) encroached upon the land in suit on 05.02.1983 and started constructions over it for the residence of defendants No. 2 and 3. The constructions are shown by letter ‘B’ in the plaint map. It is pleaded that the plaintiff served a notice on the defendants to stop the constructions, as the defendants started not only constructing the building at the place shown by letter ‘B’ but also demolishing the existing building, owned by the plaintiff in which the tenants of the plaintiff were residing. It is prayed in the suit that the defendants be restrained from demolishing the property in suit and raising constructions over it. A further relief has been sought against the defendants that they be directed to remove the constructions raised over the land in suit, restoring the land in suit to its original condition.

4. Defendants No. 1 to 4 (appellants) contested the suit and filed their written statement. It is pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property in suit. It is further pleaded that the answering defendants were given possession of the land on 02.05.1950, after the property of Raja Tehri merged with the State of Uttar Pradesh as per the agreement between the Government of India and the interim Government on 18.05.1949. Otherwise also, defendant No. 1 continued in possession over the property in suit since 1950 to 1983. Alleged tenants Nand Bahadur, Pushpa and one Joshi were inducted by the plaintiff to show his ownership in the property in suit. It is further pleaded in the written statement that the suit is under valued and the court fee paid is insufficient. Lastly, it is pleaded that the plaintiff has not come with the clean hands. The defendant No. 5 filed his separate written statement and pleaded that he started constructions as per the contract with defendant No. 1.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues :

1. Whether, the plaintiff is owner of the disputed building, or not, if so, its effect?

2. Whether, the court has jurisdiction to hear the suit?

3. Whether, the defendants have started new constructions after demolishing the disputed property w.e.f. 05.02.1983?

4. Whether, the defendants are in adverse possession of the disputed property, if so, its effect?

5. Whether, the suit is under valued?

6. To what relief, is the plaintiff entitled?

The trial court decided issued No. 2 as preliminary issue on 18.07.1987, holding that the trial court has jurisdiction to try the suit. As to the issue No. 5, the said issue was also decided as preliminary issue on 24.07.1987. Other issues were decided after recording full evidence and hearing the parties. The trial court has decided issues No. 1, 3, 4 and 6 in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction, as prayed in the plaint. By directing that the defendants are restrained from encroaching upon