JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal. It is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-5-1974 passed by the IV Civil & Sessions Judge, Allahabad allowing the appeal of the plaintiffs and setting aside the decree passed by the trial court on 22-5-1969. 2. The plaintiffs came up with the case that they are the owners in possession of plot no. 1405, which is equivalent to old plot no. 507. The prayer was that a mandatory injunction may be issued to the defendant to fill up the well, which had been constructed by him over plot no. 1405. The trial court recorded a finding that the plaintiffs had succeeded in establishing their title on plot no. 1405. However, it held that the pumping set, which had been dug in plot no. 1405, spread to plot no. 1406, as well and since the plaintiff had no right over plot no. 1406 it dismissed the suit. 3. The lower appellate court has recorded a finding that the controversy centres round only to plot no. 1405. It disagreed with the view of the trial court that since the plaintiffs had not been able to establish their possession over the entire plot no. 1405, no relief could be granted at all. The lower appellate court has taken the view that once it was found that the plaintiffs were the owners of plot no. 1405 and certain constructions were standing thereon, there is a presumption in law that the plaintiffs were in possession over the entire plot No. 1405. 4. In this court the finding of the lower appellate Court has been assailed. The finding that the plaintiffs are the owners of plot no. 1405 has not been assailed. Two submissions have been made. Firstly, in the absence of possession or construction over the entire plot no, 1405 no relief can be granted to the plaintiffs. Secondly, the defendant had acquired rights over a portion of the plot in dispute viz. 1405 by adverse possession. 5. So far as the first submission is concerned, there are two answers to the same. Firstly, the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs had succeeded in establishing their title over plot no. 1405 was enough to entitle the plaintiff's to get the relief of mandatory injunction. 1405 by adverse possession. 5. So far as the first submission is concerned, there are two answers to the same. Firstly, the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs had succeeded in establishing their title over plot no. 1405 was enough to entitle the plaintiff's to get the relief of mandatory injunction. In the title possession is implicit, particularly when it is not a case of the defendant that at any stage the plaintiffs had been dispossessed. Moreover, the lower appellate Court appears to be right in taking the view that the provisions of Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act would be applicable to the case of the plaintiffs and the land appurtenant to the buildings standing on plot no. 1406 be deemed to have been settled with them (the plaintiffs). 6. So far as the defence of the defendant that he had acquired rights over plot no. 1405 by adverse possession is concerned, it has only to be said that neither the trial court nor the appellate court has accepted this plea. The question whether the possession of the defendant was adverse is a question of fact and cannot be agitated for the first time in this court in second appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly conceded at the bar that the plaintiffs would remain satisfied if the decree of mandatory injunction as against the defendant is confined to the construction made by the defendant on plot no. 1405. I, therefore, make it clear that the defendant shall carry out the order of mandatory injunction issued by the lower appellate court only with respect to the well dug by him (the defendant) over plot no. 1405. The plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief with regard to the constructions standing on plot no. 1405. 8. The appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. There is no order as to costs.