JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - This is a defendants second appeal against the decree passed by the lower appellate court restraining him through an injunction from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs on the land in suit as indicated by letters I.S.Q.R.G.H.I.H. and as shown in the Amins map (Paper No. 71C) forming part of the decree. The trial court had dismissed the suit. 2. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that they were in possession over the land in suit for a long period having perfected title by adverse possession over it and that the present appellant and defendant-respondent No. 5 acquired no title over it by virtue of a deed of sale executed in their favour in the year 1964 by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit, whose heirs are respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in this appeal. Since the first two defendants were interfering with their possession, they had to file the suit for an injunction for restraining them from doing so. 3. The case of the first two defendants, including the present appellants, was that they had acquired title to the land in suit through a sale-deed executed in their favour by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who were owners of th share in plot No. 85 of which the land in suit formed a part. According to them, the plaintiffs were illegally claiming to be in possession of the suit land and that they were not entitled to any relief as claimed by them. 4. The plot in suit is admittedly a part of plot No. 85 of which the third and fourth defendants together with one Laxmi Sahai were the co-owners. In the year 1948, a suit (No. 198 of 1948) was filed by Laxmi Sahai against Jwala Prasad, the original plaintiff of the suit out of which the present appeal arises, on the allegation that Jwala Prasad had forcibly occupied a portion of plot No. 85 and that he be ejected therefrom. In that suit, according to the finding of the lower appellate court, it was held that Jwala Prasad admitted the claim of Laxmi Sahai and a decree for his dis-possession was passed. This decree, though put into execution was not actually executed and Jwala Prasad continued to remain in possession over the land in dispute with the permission of Laxmi Sahai. 5. This decree, though put into execution was not actually executed and Jwala Prasad continued to remain in possession over the land in dispute with the permission of Laxmi Sahai. 5. The trial court after framing the necessary issues came to the conclusion, on consideration of the evidence on record, that the plaintiff had failed to establish acquisition of any title by adverse possession over the plot in suit. On this finding, the claim made by the plaintiff for a decree for injunction in his favour was negatived. The plaintiff went up in appeal. The lower appellate court, after noticing the fact of the earlier litigation, found on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the present appellant under Order X Rule 2 C. P. C. and the statement on oath of the 3rd defendant, namely D. W. 3 Mangla Sahai, one of the executants of the sale-deed in favour of the first of two defendants, that the plaintiff was claiming to be in possession, over the northern portion of plot No. 85 alone and that the said portion was given exclusively to Laxmi Sahai in a family partition between him and the 3rd and 4th defendants. The lower appellate court, in substance, took the view that, inasmuch as, the land involved in the present suit was the same which was involved in the earlier suit and was the one which fell to the share of Laxmi Sahai in the family partition aforesaid, it was obvious that the first two defendants did not acquire any title thereto under the sale-deed executed in their favour by defendants Nos. 3 and 4. As such, it felt that the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining the first two defendants from interfering with his possession over the land in suit. It therefore, decreed the suit. 6. Sri G.P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff had failed to establish their title over the suit land by adverse possession was in consonance with law and that the lower appellate court was not justified in interfering with it in the manner in which it purported to do. Sri G.P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff had failed to establish their title over the suit land by adverse possession was in consonance with law and that the lower appellate court was not justified in interfering with it in the manner in which it purported to do. The precise submission is that even on the facts found by the lower appellate court, it was clear that the possession of the plaintiff over the land in suit could not be held to be adverse for there was no evidence to indicate that the possession was with a hostile animus. Sri Bhargava further contends that after recording a finding that the possession of Jwala Prasad over the suit land was permissive, the lower appellate court ought not to have interfered with the decree passed by the trial court. 7. For the disposal of the present appeal, it is really not necessary to examine the question whether the finding recorded by the trial court that the plaintiffs had failed to establish title by adverse possession over the suit land ought to have been interfered with by the lower appellate court. As noticed by the lower appellate court, and as is borne out by the material on record, the claim in the present suit was confined to the northern portion of plot No. 85 which lay across the road shown in the map forming part of the decree. The possession of the plaintiff over that part of the land was admitted even to the first two defendants as is clear from the statement of their counsel recorded under Order X Rule 2 C. P. C. The lower appellate court was justified in taking the view on the basis of the statement made by Mangla Sahai as D.W. 3 in his cross examination that as a consequence of a family partition between the co-owners, th share towards the north of plot No. 85 became the exclusive property of Laxmi Sabai and that the plaintiff was in possession over that portion alone. On the own showing of the first two defendants only th share of plot No. 85 was purchased by them from the other co-owners. On the own showing of the first two defendants only th share of plot No. 85 was purchased by them from the other co-owners. Since the plaintiff was found to be in possession over that part of plot No. 85 which fell to the share of Laxmi Sahai, it is obvious that he is entitled to protect his possession against any interference by persons who have no title over it. 8. I sum, on the findings recorded by it, the lower appellate court was fully justified in passing the decree that it has. The decree needs no interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs.