In other words, the plaintiff claimed to be companyowner along with the defendants 1 to 4.
The second suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit land or raising any companystruction or transferring the same to the detriment of the plaintiff.
The original plaintiffs father and defendants fathers were brothers being the sons of one Kanshi Ram.
The plaintiff also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 5 from installing and working the sawing machine at point A as shown in the sketch plan.
The 5th defendant is a tenant of defendant No.1 and he had installed a saw machine on the portion of the land let out to him by 1st defendant.
A mandatory injunction was also granted directing defendant No.5 to remove the structure raised and the Saw Machine installed therein.
Both the suits were tried together and they were dismissed.
The first appellate Court therefore restrained companystruction at point marked CB or any other part of the suit land and further directed defendant No.1 to restore the entrance gate and passage to the suit land at point CB.
The plaintiffs claimed that Khasra Nos.
The first suit was filed to restrain the first defendant appellant herein from making any companystruction on the spot marked CB in the sketch annexed to the plaint or in any other part of the land and also to restore the original position of the land at point CB and to restore the entry gate to the suit property.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C NO.14675 14676 OF 2002 Venkatarama Reddi, J. Leave granted.
It was also held that the Saw Machine was installed by the 5th defendant without the companysent of the company sharers.
The plaintiff further claimed that there was an entrance and passage at point CB shown in the plan attached to plaint leading to K.No.119 and it has been annexed by the defendant No.1 who was proposing to raise shops thereon.
119 120 were Abadideh inam land belonging to the said companymon ancestor and the defendants have numberexclusive rights over the said land.
It was further held that a passage existed at point CB and the first defendant had numberlegal right to block or raise any companystruction over the passage leading to the land in K.No.
The appellants were the defendants in the two suits filed by Madan Gopal, who is numbermore and is number represented by his legal representatives who are respondents herein.
