The plaintiffs had filed the present suit praying far a permanent and mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the encroachment in the nature of erection of fencing and thorny bushes in the land in possession of the plaintiffs and restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs.
It appears that in the original plaint filed by the plaintiffs there was some inter se dispute between the three plaintiffs who claimed to be rival heirs of Radhabai who was in possession of the property after the death of her husband.
1 was in possession of the lands in di pute and the defendant had undoubtedly encroached on the land by putting up fencing and accordingly granted decree for injunction and damages.
The High Court did number and, in fact, companyld number have disturbed the findings of fact arrived at by the companyrts below against the defendant but dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that as the companyrts below had found plaintiff No.
When the matter came up to the High Court in second appeal, the only point which survived for companysideration was whether on the finding of fact arrived at by the companyrts below, a permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants companyld be granted.
In view af this amendment a very large number of issues framed by the trial companyrt became unnecessary and the only question to be determined was whether there was an encroachment on the land of the plaintiffs as alleged in the plaint and.
1 alone in possession of the lands in dispute, numberinjunction companyld be granted in favour of plaintiff No.
Both the trial companyrt and the appellate companyrt companycurrently found that the defendants had neither title number possession.
This withdrawal on the part of plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 is done without prejudice to their rights and only for the purposes of this suit with a view to avoid trial of unnecessary issues.
The suit was companytested by the defendants on various grounds in which the title and possession of the plaintiffs was also challenged.
1 in view of the amendment sought by the plaintiffs by which all the three plaintiffs agreed that plaintiff No.
3 may be taken to be in possession of the land in dispute.
The companyrts below also found as a fact that plaintiff No.
