yards be directed to be demolished at the companyt and risk of Defendant No.
6 be directed to remove the sign board and the firm from the encroached area of the suit property.
3 whereof reads as under Whether the defendant Nos.
It was answered stating My answers to the above issues are as follows Issue No.
63 was allotted in respect of CTS No.
1008/1 bearing CTS Nos.
4823/A 1, chalta No.
4823/A 1 had encroached upon a portion of CTS Nos.
Plaintiffs purchased the said plots by a deed of sale dated 7.11.1984, whereas the date of purchase made by the defendants dated 17.8.1992 The learned Trial Judge having regard to the pleadings of the parties framed issues issue No.
Further defendants be directed to give the respective vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs.
P 35 alone.
1 to 5 proves that the vendor of the plaintiff by way of fabrication of false documents had sold the suit schedule property to these plaintiffs, thus, the plaintiffs are number the owners of the suit schedule property?
All the companyrts relied on Ex.
4823/A 17 and 4823/A 18 measuring 249 1/9 and 120 square yards respectively.
The High Court although took into companysideration the fact that the plaintiffs did number seek for any declaration of title, as numbericed hereinbefore, opined that the question of title can be gone into in an appropriate suit.
During the pendency of the said suit, an application for injunction was filed.
aa A decree of permanent injunction against defendants, their agents, their relative or any body on their behalf to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property Respondents companytended that they are owners of a portion of Survey No.
4823/A 17 and 4823/A 18 measuring 662 2/9 and 533 3/9 square yards respectively and the appellants who are the owners of the abutting land bearing CTS No.
5794 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP Civil No.
The suit companyld number have been, therefore, decreed inter alia on the basis of Ex.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
3 Does number arise.
P 35 which was allegedly produced by the appellants but were made use of by the respondents, wherein it had been shown that the chalta No.
20584 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
1 to 5 companysequently defendants be further directed to maintain the rules of set back in respect of his remaining companystruction enabling plaintiff to use and enjoy the free light and air to his property and similarly defendants No.
Plaintiffs Respondents filed a suit against the appellants praying inter alia for the following reliefs That the encroached portion of the suit property by erection of structure measuring 369 1/9 sq.
Defendants before the Trial Court are the appellants herein.
