JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - This is a plaintiffs second Appeal. 2. The case of the plaintiffs who filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, in a representative capacity, was that plot nos. 446 (area 2 Biswas) and 447/3 (Area 2 Biswas) was a graveyard for the Muslims of village Chamari over a part whereof the defendants had raised constructions and had made preparations to construct over the whole of it. The plaintiffs prayed that a decree for possession over the plots be passed in their favour apart from one injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the land in suit. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds including the one as to whether the disputed land was Qabristan at all. 3. The Trial Court framed issue no. 2 to read "Whether the disputed land is Qabristan ? if so, its effect ? On a consideration of the evidence on record, it took the view that the land in suit was a Qabristan. It, consequently, decreed the suit for possession as also for permanent injunction in the terms prayed for by the plaintiffs. 4. The lower appellate court, in an appeal filed by the defendants, posed the question "Whether the plaintiffs have proved as a fact that the disputed land is a graveyard ? as the third point which arose for decision in the appeal. The lower appellate court considered the evidence afresh and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove as a fact that the disputed land was a graveyard. It, therefore, dismissed the suit. Hence, the present Second Appeal. 5. Appearing for the plaintiffs, Sri N.A. Kazmi, their learned counsel has, contended that the lower appellate court erred in coming to the conclusion that the land in suit was not established to be a graveyard. Its finding, according to Sri Kazmi, was vitiated, in as much as, the court below had failed to draw the presumption of the land in suit being a graveyard from the entries to that effect in the revenue records which entries were held by the Supreme Court in Mohammad S. Labbai v. Mohammad Hanifa, AIR 1976 SC 1569 to be conclusive evidence of the fact that the land was a graveyard. 6. 6. As held by me in Ram Prasad v. Magan Singh and others, Second Appeal No. 867 of 1972 connected with Second Appeal No. 868 of 1972, Decided on October 1, 1980 the observations of the Supreme Court in the case aforesaid had to be read in the context of the controversy before it, namely, whether the graveyard was a public graveyard in its entirety or whether part of it was a private graveyard. For reasons given by me in that judgement, it has to be held that the dictum of the Supreme Court in Labbai's case is of no avail to the appellants in the present case. 7. A perusal of the judgement of the lower appellate court shows that primarily it was in respect of plot no 447 that the parties were at issue about the plaintiffs dispossession therefrom. The lower appellate court, on the finding recorded by it, rightly dismissed the suit in so far as that plot is concerned. 8. In respect of plot no. 446 as well, the trial court had decreed the suit for possession and also for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession. Before the lower appellate court a specific point arose between the parties for decision in regard to the decree passed by the lower trial court which was to the effect. Whether the formal error in the operative portion of the judgement can be sustained ? Dealing with this point, the lower appellate court has taken the view that the decree for possession over it could not be sustained as the defendants had not claimed possession over, it further, the relief of injunction granted by the trial court also could not be held because there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that the defendants gave any cause of action to the plaintiffs in respect of plot no. 446. The clear import of these observations is that as and when the defendants gave a cause of action to the plaintiffs, a relief of injunction could be prayed for by them if it was otherwise available. In view of the observations made by the lower appellate court while discussing point No. 4 in its judgement under appeal. It is clear that no exception, at this stage, could be taken by the learned counsel for the appellants to the decree eventually passed by the lower appellate court. In view of the observations made by the lower appellate court while discussing point No. 4 in its judgement under appeal. It is clear that no exception, at this stage, could be taken by the learned counsel for the appellants to the decree eventually passed by the lower appellate court. Learned counsel for the appellants has, thus failed to persuade me to interfere with the decree of the lower appellate court. 9. The appeal fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs.