JUDGMENT R.C. Srivastava, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal. The plaintiffs case was that they were joint owners of plot no. 35/3, area 07 Acres, premises bearing no. 71, situate in Town Area Gangapur, and a well along with Paudar situate in the Town Area and a strip of land lying in between the well and road. They stated that originally Sarvsri Gulab Das and Satya Narain were its Joint owners, that a Waqf was created in favour of Vishnuji, Sheoji and Hanumanji under a deed dated 28-7-1930 and plaintiff no. 1 was the Shebait of the endowed properties. Defendant no. 4 transferred some share and right to defendant nos. 1 to 3 who made certain constructions including a wall for stopping the plaintiffs to use the jointly owned properties. It was further Stated that the plaintiffs and defendants were in joint possession of the properties. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the suit as framed was not maintainable and further that there was already a partition between the parties in which the property fell in the share of respondent no. 6 who transferred his interest in favour of the defendants. Plea of the suit being barred by limitation was also raised. The trial court after considering the entire evidence on the record dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and specifically field that the suit was barred by time. The plaintiffs went up in appeal which was partly allowed by the Third Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi. Aggrieved, defendant nos. 2 and 3 have corns to this Court in Second Appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the suit of the plaintiff respondents was not maintainable. While challenging the maintainability of the suit he has contended that in fact the suit should have been filed on behalf of the deity but both the courts below have concurrently held that the property did not vest in the deity, hence the appellate court was not right in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs on the basis of individual rights.' 3. This contention has no force. The appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding that the endowment was not established. But as the plaintiffs were claiming their rights independently in individual capacity, the suit was rightly held to be maintainable. This contention has no force. The appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding that the endowment was not established. But as the plaintiffs were claiming their rights independently in individual capacity, the suit was rightly held to be maintainable. Apart from that the description given in the plaint on behalf of the plaintiffs is in an individual capacity. The defendants themselves have stated in paragraph 15 of the Written Statement that the plaintiffs have not impleaded the deity as party and the suit at the instance of individual is not maintainable. This allegation made in paragraph 15 of the written statement supports the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit was not filed on behalf of the deity but in their own individual capacity. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants then contended that the appellate court has not reversed the judgement of the trial court on the question of Article 142 of the Limitation Act which involved the question of limitation, hence the judgement of the appellate court is vitiated in law. The Trial court recorded a specific finding that the property is not owned jointly, with the result that the limitation was considered from that point of view but when the appellate court has recorded a finding that the property is owned jointly by the parties then unless there is a specific plea of ouster and also evidence to establish that fact, the aforesaid plea also cannot be accepted. Neither there is any plea nor any evidence or material to substantiate the claim. In the absence of such material this contention cannot be accepted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the finding recorded by the appellate court with respect to joint ownership is against the evidence on the record. 6. This contention too cannot be accepted. The appellate court after considering the entire evidence on the record arrived at the conclusion that the parties are joint owner of the property in dispute. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly urged that the appellate court has failed to consider that if, at all, the plaintiffs, were aggrieved, they could seek relief of partition and not demolition. 8. Learned counsel for the parties admit that the property owned is joint property. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly urged that the appellate court has failed to consider that if, at all, the plaintiffs, were aggrieved, they could seek relief of partition and not demolition. 8. Learned counsel for the parties admit that the property owned is joint property. But the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that no construction has been made and only boundary wall was constructed so that any interference in the use of the joint land may not be caused and there may not be any obstruction in the use of the well and paudar. 9. It seems that the well was constructed on an open space owned jointly by the parties. Once it is established that the parties are the joint owners, the defendants had no right to make construction over a joint property. The question as to what construction has been made and whether it is causing any obstacle in the use of the well and Paudar to the parties, can be considered at the time of the execution of the decree. The questions involved in the appeal are pure findings of fact. No question of law is involved in it. 10. In the result, this appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The stay order shall stand discharged.