JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - This second appeal by the defendants has been filed against the decision decreeing the plaintiffs suit in its entirety. The suit had been dismissed by the trial court but the findings were reversed by the court below. 2. The relevant facts for the purposes of the appeal are that the house in dispute is alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiffs under a registered sale deed dated 24th July, 1965 from one Shambhu Charan and his wife Bimla Devi. The defendants on the other hand also claimed to be the purchaser of the same property from Sangram Tewari on 5-7-1954 but the said sale deed was unregistered in spite of the fact that the house had been sold for Rs. 300/-. 3. The trial court recorded a finding that although the defendants had no title but he was in possession of the house and, therefore, entitled to take advantage of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The lower appellate court disagreed although it agreed with so much of the findings of the trial court that the plaintiff, was purchaser of the disputed property under a registered sale deed dated 24-7-1956. Ultimately, the lower appellate court has also decreed the plaintiffs suit for damages in respect of certain demolition allowed to have been caused by the defendants. 4. Sri V.P. Misra, learned counsel for the appellants made a faint effort to assail the findings of the court below but these are concluded by findings of fact. There is little scope of arguing that the plaintiff was not the owner of the house in question. On the question of possession also nothing has been pointed out which may go to show that the finding recorded by the court below was incorrect or that the defendants was in possession over the house. 5. Sri Misra, however, contended that so far as the decree for damages on account of alleged demolition by the defendants is concerned there was neither any issue on the question framed by the court below nor any finding has been recorded either by the trial court or by the lower appellate court. In these circumstances, it is urged that the court below have erred in granting a decree for damages and to let the amount to be determined in the proceedings under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. 6. In these circumstances, it is urged that the court below have erred in granting a decree for damages and to let the amount to be determined in the proceedings under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I find that there is sufficient force in the contention that there is no finding that the defendant was responsible for causing any demolition to the building. There could be no question of granting any decree against the defendants in view of this the decree of the court below has to be modified to that extent and the decree regarding damages for demolition of the house has to be set aside. 7. In the result the appeal succeeds in part. The decree of the court below is modified to the extent that the plaintiffs suit shall stand decreed only for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering to their possession from the house in dispute. The decree in so far as it relates to damages for causing demolition of the house shall stand set aside. However, in the circumstances of the case I will direct the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal.