The appellate court cannot issue orders contrary to the appellant's interest when no cross-objection is presented, upholding that possession is protected by law even without ownership rights.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. Ahluwalia, J.

The second appeal under section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07-10-2008, passed by First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 25A/2008, as well as the judgment and decree dated 03-03-2007, passed by Ninth Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 357A/2007.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs who have lost their case from both the courts below.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that the original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that he is the owner and in possession of the property in dispute and defendants Nos. 1 and 2, on filmsy grounds, are out and out to disposes him from the disputed property. It was further stated that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are, accordingly, manipulating the revenue records, whereas in respect of the disputed property, defendant No. 2 itself had given N.O.C. on 09-03-2000. Even a notice was given to the plaintiff by defendants for diversion. It was pleaded that defendants have registered the case against plaintiff on flimsy grounds and, taking advantage of the illiteracy of plaintiff, defendants are working contrary to the provisions of law. It was pleaded that on 02-01-2004, the defendants, along with some antisocial elements, came on the spot and extended a threat to the plaintiff that they would dispossess him. Accordingly, the suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

4. Defendant No. 1 did not file any written statement.

5. Defendant No. 2 filed its written statement and claimed that the property was never in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. The disputed property was acquired under the Nagar Sudhar Nyas Gwalior, Vinay Nagar, Sector No. 4, as per the provisions of Section 71 of Nagar Sudhar Nyas Adiniyam , and the said plot is under the scheme of G.D.A. The disputed property was already acquired in the year 1979. The suit has been filed on self-imaginary grounds, and no N.O.C. was ever issued to the plaintiff. If the state had given any notice for diversion purposes, then it is not within the knowledge of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff is not in possession of the property in dispute, therefore, there is no question of dispossessing him from the disputed property. On 02-01-2004, defendant No. 2 had not taken any action against the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the land in dispute has already been acquired, and in the years 1979 and 1983, the compensation has already been paid to Manka and Shanti through defendant No. 1. Plaintiff has no right or title in the property in dispute. Since the name of the plaintiff was recorded without any order by the competent authority, therefore, by order dated 26-09-2005, the mutation of name of plaintiff in the revenue record has been set aside and under the orders of the collector, FIR has already been lodged against the Patwari and other persons, and Crime No. 408 under Section 420 , 467, 468 of IPC has been registered, and RCT No. 1254/2005 is pending before the Court of JMFC Gwalior.

6. The Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed the claim of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the property in dispute and held that appellants/plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the property in dispute. However, it was held that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property in dispute, and accordingly, it was held that although the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the property in dispute, but their possession shall not be disturbed without following due procedure of law.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, Appellants/Plaintiffs filed a civil appeal, which too has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 07-10-2008. However, it is submitted that in an appeal filed by the plaintiff, an order, which is contrary to the interest of the plaintiff, has bee