JUDGMENT This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 27.8.97 passed by Additional District Judge, Sheopurkalan, District Morena in Civil Appeal No. 15-A/79 confirming the judgment and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge, Class-2, Sheopurkalan District Morena in Civil Suit No. 2-A/74 decided on 31.3.1979. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 15.11.69, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent preventive injunction based on his title alleging that the open plot of land in suit was purchased by him on 15.12.1948 from one Purshottam, the Ex-Zamindar of the village for a consideration of Rs. 85/- and has been in his possession over since then. Having secured permission of Gram Panchayat on 13.4.1969, the plaintiff had sunk the foundation and raised walls, also constructed few rooms. When on 12.11.1969, the Municipal Council started demolishing the construction. According to the plaintiff, he being the owner in possession of the suit property, the defendant had no business to demolish the construction over it. The defendant denied all the plaint averments and submitted that the plaintiff was an encroacher which encroachment, defendant was entitled to remove. The matter had come here before this Court earlier in Second Appeal vide S.A. No. 129/1980 and this Court after hearing the parties remanded the matter to the lower appellate Court with a direction to rehear the parties and dispose of the appeal consistently with the observations made in judgment dated 18.8.90. Counsel for the appellant submitted that though specifically directed by this Court in S.A. No. 129 of 1980 decided on 18.8.90 in paras 7, 8 and 9 the lower appellate Court has not at all decided the appeal specially on the point raised in paras 8 and 9. The Court below was required to decide the matter as per direction. There is great force in the contention. The Lower Appellate Court has not followed the special directions. Paras 8 and 9 of the Judgment are pertinent. Shri Kaushik counsel for the respondent conceded that Court below has not dealt that matter as required by this Court. In that view of the matter the first question of law is decided in favour of the appellants and against the respondent. Since Judgment and decree is not as per direction it is not necessary to go into second question which relates to appreciation of evidence. In that view of the matter the first question of law is decided in favour of the appellants and against the respondent. Since Judgment and decree is not as per direction it is not necessary to go into second question which relates to appreciation of evidence. The Judgment and decree passed by lower appellate Court is set aside. The matter is sent back to the lower appellate Court to rehear the appeal and decide the same in accordance with the direction. The appeal is allowed with cost. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.