Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision petition has been preferred against the order passed by the 3rd Addl. District Judge, Siwan in Misc. Appeal No. 92 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Addl. Munsif l, Siwan in the proceeding under Order XXXIX, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been set aside. 3. Plaintiffs were the petitioners, who filed Title Suit No. 16 of 1989 seeking declaration that the gift deed alleged to be executed by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 1 is illegal, inoperative and void. An injunction was also prayed restraining the defendants from interferring with the possession of the plaintiffs and also in alienating the suit property. The suit property consists of a house and there was also a restraint order regarding realisation of rent from the tenants. The relationship of Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 is of mother and daughter. It appears that Defendant No. 2 sided with the plaintiffs denying about the gift deed in favour of her daughter, Defendant No. 1. In the injunction order a modification was made ultimately to the effect that the Defendant No. 1 i.e. Opposite Party shall not dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property, should not realise rent from the suit property and also shall not alienate the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the said order of injunction had been violated by Defendant no. 1 as she entered inside the house and dispossessed the plaintiffs. On the other hand it was the contention of the Defendant No. 1 that as Defendant No. 2 i.e. her mother, who are being ill- treated by the plaintiffs-petitioners, she had come to see her mother meaning thereby to save her mother from the cruelty being imposed on her by the plaintiffs. She had come in rescue of her mother and it appears from the submissions made by both the parties and also from the order passed that Defendant No. 1 had started residing in the house itself which definitely goes against the force of the injunction order passed. It does not now lie in the mouth of Defendant No. 1 that from the very beginning she was living in the house with her mother. She is a married daughter. It does not now lie in the mouth of Defendant No. 1 that from the very beginning she was living in the house with her mother. She is a married daughter. It may be that she had come to see her mother and she has got every right to see her mother but by that way after seeing her mother, she should have left for her husbands house and if she feels her mother to be unsafe in the hands of the plaintiffs, she could have taken her mother to her husbands house instead she started residing within the house and definitely by such act the Defendant no. 1 has totally violated the force of the injunction passed. In that way the original court had rightly he/d considering the relationship between the parties instead of imposed any punishment asking defendant no. 1 to vacate the house within a period of one week but still then when she did not vacate then the punishment was imposing to that of civii prison. The appellate court held that as the plaintiffs could not specify the portion from which they have been dispossessed by the Defendant no. 1 then the violation has not been established. It appears that the learned Appellate Court has approached on a wrong notion. The question of area does not arise regarding dispossession. When there is allegation that the plaintiffs have been dispossessed and it is admitted from the side of the Defendant No. 1 that she is residing in the house then definitely dispossession has become complete. However, considering this position and circumstances I go to the original position giving one months time to the defendants no. 1 opposite party to vacate the house immediately within the period as mentioned above. If not then the subsequent order passed of civil prison shall remain in vogue. 4. The revision is thus allowed.