JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J.- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the appellant claiming an injunction against the defendant from interfering and taking forcible possession of the disputed land and payment of Rs. 75/- as the price of the crop damaged by the defendant. The suit has been decreed by both the courts below. It appears that earlier the consolidation operations had commenced. The disputed land was allotted to the plaintiff by the consolidation authorities. The possession was with the plaintiff. The suit was filed merely for injunction. It was not abated under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter-referred to as the Act). From the written statement I find that the plea of title relating to the tenancy has been raised. Even the plaintiff in paragraph no. 1 of the plaint has claimed to be the owner of the chak No. 670. The defendant forcibly cut away a portion of the crop and thereupon the suit was filed. Chak No. 670 was allotted to the plaintiff during the consolidation operations. Thereafter the possession was delivered and then the defendant interfered in the possession of the plaintiff.. Under such circumstances the suit was filed for damages and injunction. Once the possession was delivered to the plaintiff under section 28 of the Act he had every right to remain in possession till he was dispossessed due to any subsequent change in chaks. No such change in chaks or delivery of possession has been claimed by the defendant. Under these circumstances it was not necessary for the courts below to go into the title of the parties. The courts below have gone into the title but that will not effect the maintainability of the suit where the title of the parties has already been decided by the consolidation authorities. In any case as the chaks were formed and the possession was delivered to the plaintiff he was entitled to remain in possession till he was dispossessed in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, I do not find any mistake committed by the courts below in entertaining the suit which was for injunction and damages for crops. In any case as the chaks were formed and the possession was delivered to the plaintiff he was entitled to remain in possession till he was dispossessed in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, I do not find any mistake committed by the courts below in entertaining the suit which was for injunction and damages for crops. After the chak was formed and the crops were sown by the plaintiff there is no provision under the Act to prevent any party by any injunction or to award compensation for damage to the crops due to the act of a trespasser. Under these circumstances the relief could not have to be sought under any provision of the Act. One thing may be made clear that the injunction which has been granted is in absolute terms. The injunction granted by the trial court reads as under:- "The defendants are hereby restrained from granting the said plot or interfering in the plaintiff's possession mentioned in the plaint." Such a wide injunction could not be granted. The only injunction that was prayed was an injunction against forcible dispossession of the plaintiff. The permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff could operate only if the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is dispossessed in accordance with law or under any proceedings, there could be no injunction. 2. In the result the appeal is partly allowed and the injunction granted by the courts below is modified. It will be in the following terms - "The defendants are restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, over the plots mentioned in the suit, by force or otherwise than in accordance with law." 3. Remaining portion of the decree shall stand.