P.C. Pathak, J.

l. The plaintiff having lost the suit in both the Courts below has filed this second appeal.

2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief claimed by them and that the respondent is entitled to dispossess the appellants from any portion of the suit properties?

(2) Whether the order Ex. P. 2 passed by the Appeal Committee of the Corporation is valid and enforceable or is void and without jurisdiction ?

(3) Whether or not the respondent was entitled to go behind the order Ex. P. 1 and plan Ex. P. 4 and order Ex. P. 2 and Ex. P. 5 passed by the competent authorities?

3. The plaintiff filed the suit in representative capacity stating that there exists a mosque over plot No. 32/2. Motitabela Main Road, Indore. The plot on its West, North and South is owned by mosque where bath-room, verandah, urinal, well, a tank and temporary sheds exist. All these structures and the garden are surrounded by a wire fencing. The land underneath the mosque and the land appurtenant to it are Municipal Kh. Nos. 15510-15511 and 15513, while Revenue Kh. No. is 981. The dimension of the plot and boundary are more properly delineated in the map (Ex P. 4). It was pleaded that the structure and the wire fencing exist for the last 100-125 years. When the permission to erect to wire fencing was refused, the plaintiff preferred appeals registered as appeal Nos. 529/63 and 43/66 which were allowed and the plaintiff was remitted to erect the fencing since the structures were found to be authorised. Despite the aforesaid orders, by notice dated 14-9-1966, the Municipal Corporation threatened to demolish the structure. In pursuance of decision in appeal No. 43/66, the plaintiff submitted a site plan for alteration and modification. The plan was returned on 6-10-1967 for furnishing details of the measurement. After due compliance, the plan was resubmitted on 28-11-1967, but the Corporation failed to accord to sanction within the prescribed period. The plaintiff, therefore, served a notice on 28-12-1967 and filed the present suit for declaration that the structures detailed in par all of the plaint and the wire fencing around them as per map are legal and duly authorised by the Corporation. The plaintiff also prayed for mandatory injunction commanding the Corporation to accord sanction to the alterations and modifications sought for and damages @ Rs.150/- per month.

4. The Municipal Corporation contested the suit on the grounds that the mosque is situated on Kh. No. 15511 only. Later in 1967, the plaintiffs encroached upon Kh. No 15510, 15513 and 15558, which vest in the Corporation. The defendants denied that any permission was given by the Appeal Committee and even if any such permission was given it was void being without authority. The plaintiffs were not entitled to the damages.

5. The trial Court as also the lower appeal Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove their case and, therefore, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence, this second appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below misconstrued the relief claimed by the plaintiff and erred in holding that the plaintiff claimed any declaration of title over the plot on which the super-structures and the garden surrounded by wire fencing exist. The plaintiff only claimed a declaration that the fencing of structures was duly sanctioned and not unauthorised. The attention of the Court was drawn to notice Ex. P. 3, dated 28-12 1962; whereby the Corporation cal1c~ upon the plaintiffs to remove the encroachment made by them on Kh. No.15510 by erecting a fencing and raising a garden. The fencing is shown by red line in map (Ex. P. 4).

7. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the opinion that both the questions framed in the appeal must be answered against the appellant. The submission of the appellant that the cl