JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th March, 2000 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Court No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No. 22/99, whereby the trial court had dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff seeking declaration, injunction and mesne profits in respect of the property in question against the respondents (original defendants). 2. The facts in nutshell giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit against the respondents-defendants before the trial court alleging inter alia that the plaintiff had purchased the property marked as "ABCD" in the map (Ex.5) annexed to the plaint, by the two sale-deeds, out of which the eastern portion was purchased from one Smt. Shanti M. Devi by registered sale-deed dated 21.8.72 (Ex. 2) and the western portion thereof was purchased vide registered sale-deed dated 21.8.72 from one Shri Raghuveer Singh (Ex.3); that the disputed suit premises was marked as "ABEF" in the said map (Ex.5), which was part of the property purchased from Shanti M. Devi as per the sale-deed dated 21.8.72. It was further averred that in the year 1980, the plaintiff was staying at Imphal (Manipur) and taking undue advantage of his absence, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had put up one 'thadi' (cabin) under the tin-shed towards the eastern side of the said property i.e. the disputed premises marked as "ABEF"; that because of the said 'thadi', the ingress and egress of the plaintiff towards eastern side was closed and the window of eastern side was also closed ; that one Shri Dharam Chand Jain was in possession of the some part of the property of the northern side and the said Dharam Chand Jain had sub-let the premises to the sub-tenants including the defendants and thus the defendants had put up illegal 'thadi' on the said disputed property marked "ABEF"; that the said defendants were asked to remove the said 'thadi' but they did not. The plaintiff thereafter had filed one suit against the said Dharam Chand Jain seeking possession of the disputed property and in the said suit compromise was arrived at on 18.5.96 (Ex. 14), by which the said Dharam Chand Jain had handed over the possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter had filed one suit against the said Dharam Chand Jain seeking possession of the disputed property and in the said suit compromise was arrived at on 18.5.96 (Ex. 14), by which the said Dharam Chand Jain had handed over the possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were running a wine shop in the said 'thadi' and were trying to put up illegal construction in August, 1999. The plaintiff, therefore, had filed the suit of seeking declaration that he was the owner of the disputed premises and was entitled to recover possession thereof from the defendants, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction on the disputed property and from causing obstruction to the plaintiff in their right of passage and also a direction against defendant No.4, Jaipur Nagar Nigam not to permit the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to carry out the alleged construction on the disputed property.The said suit was contested by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (defendants Nos. 1 to 3) denying the allegations and the averments made in the plaint and further contending inter alia that the said Shanti M. Devi was not the owner of the disputed property and, therefore, could not have sold the same to the plaintiff ; that the said defendants were running the wines shop in the disputed premises since August 1982 in the name and style of "Naveen Wines". It was also contended that the said disputed property was purchased by the said defendants subsequently on 29th April, 1986 from one Shri Goving Narain and since then the said defendants were the owners of the disputed property. It was further contended that in the suit filed by the plaintiff against the said Dharam Chand Jain, one Commissioner was appointed for local inspection and as per the report and the map prepared by the said Commissioner on 5.8.82, there was a reference of "Naveen Wines" at the disputed site and, therefore, the plaintiff was aware about the possession of the defendants of the said disputed property since then. According to the defendants, the defendants had become the owners by adverse possession and that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by law of limitation. 3. According to the defendants, the defendants had become the owners by adverse possession and that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by law of limitation. 3. The trial court from the pleadings of the parties had framed as many as 13 issues, and after considering the evidence on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, by giving findings on some of the issues in favour of the plaintiff and some in favour of the defendants. The trial court while dismissing the suit inter alia held that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises marked as "ABEF" in the map (Ex.5), however, the defendant Nos. 1 to had become owners by adverse possession as they were in possession of the disputed property for more than 12 years. The trial court also held that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by law of limitation and the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the appellant-plaintiff has filed the present appeal. 4. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Amit Gupta for Mr. B.L. Gupta for the appellant that the trial court had committed an error apparent on the face of record by holding on one hand that the plaintiff was the owner of the disputed property and on the other hand that the defendants had become the owners by adverse possession. He also submitted that against the said finding of the trial court that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not filed any cross-objection in the present appeal. Taking the court to the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced before the trial court, Mr. Gupta submitted that the predecessor in title Shanti M. Devi had purchased the big chunk of land totally ad-measuring 2880 sq. yards, from the Government of Jaipur as per the sale-deed dated 20th March, 1948 (Ex.4). Out of the said land, the said Shanti M. Devi had sold out to the plaintiff Rajmal Jain, only a part of land ad-measuring 213 sq. yards, having 11/2 shops with tin-sheds in front abetting on Sansar Chandra Road as per the boundaries mentioned in the sale-deed dated 21.8.72 (Ex.2), which included the disputed property. According to Mr. Out of the said land, the said Shanti M. Devi had sold out to the plaintiff Rajmal Jain, only a part of land ad-measuring 213 sq. yards, having 11/2 shops with tin-sheds in front abetting on Sansar Chandra Road as per the boundaries mentioned in the sale-deed dated 21.8.72 (Ex.2), which included the disputed property. According to Mr. Gupta, in the suit filed against Moti Chand Jain S/o Dharam Chand, who had sub-let the property to various tenants a compromise was arrived at on 18.5.96 and accordingly the said Moti Chand had handed-over the possession of the property including the disputed property to the plaintiff, however there being subtenants, the said possession had remained symbolic only. He further submitted that Shri Govind Narain, from whom the defendants had allegedly purchased the disputed property, was not the owner and, therefore, he could not have sold the disputed property to the defendants, and the defendants also could not have made any claim of ownership over the suit property. Placing heavy reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of L.N. Aswathama & Anr. v. P. Prakash, (2009) 13 SCC 229 , Mr. Gupta submitted that for claiming the ownership by adverse possession, the defendants were required to prove long, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession to the true owner for a period exceeding 12 years, which the defendants in the instant case had not proved, and that the pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent, and could not be taken by the defendants. 5. The learned counsel Mr. Kasliwal for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, however vehemently submitted that the plaintiff was not the owner of the disputed premises and the defendants having purchased the disputed premises from one Shri Govind Narain as per the sale-deed (Ex. A/33), the defendants had become the owners of the said premises. He further submitted that number of documents were produced by the said defendants in support of their claim of long possession of the disputed premises, prior to filing of the suit by the plaintiff, as against that the plaintiff had not produced any document to show his possession of the disputed property. Pressing into service provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code, Mr. Pressing into service provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code, Mr. Kasliwal submitted that the respondents defendants were not required to challenge the finding adverse to the defendants by filing cross-objection in the appeal, and that the same could be challenged orally in the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff. Mr. Kasliwal has relied upon the ratio of judgment of Apex Court in case of Ravindra Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3571 and in case of Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research & Anr. v. A.P. Wasan & Ors., 2003 (8) AIC 475 (SC) : 2003 (98) FLR 479 : (2003) 5 SCC 321 , in support of his submission. Mr. Kasliwal also referring to the sale-deeds, more particularly, the sale-deed (Ex. 4) by which the Government of Jaipur had sold the property to Smt. Shanti M. Devi and to the sale-deed (Ex.2) by which Shanti M. Devi had sold one part of the said properties to the plaintiff, submitted that the area and the boundaries of property mentioned in the said sale-deeds were not tallying with each other. Mr. Kasliwal also placed heavy reliance on the report of Commissioner (Ex.A/4/1) and the reply of the plaintiff as regards better particulars of the property (Ex. 13) filed by the plaintiff in the earlier suit against Moti Chand, submitted that the plaintiff was aware that the said Dharam Chand F/o Moti Chand, had sub-let the premises to many sub-tenants and that the "Naveen Wines" shop was also in existence on the disputed premises when the said report was prepared by the Commissioner. He also submitted that the said shop "Naveen Wines" belonged to the defendants and there were also other documents to show that the defendants were in possession of the said shop situated in the disputed premises since last more than 12 years, and hence the defendants had become the owners by adverse possession. Mr. Kasliwal further submitted that even otherwise the defendants having purchased the disputed property from Govind Narain as per the sale-deed (Ex.A/33), the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the possession from the defendants. Shri Kasliwal also submitted that it was for the plaintiff to establish his title and could not succeed on the weaknesses in the pleas raised in the written statement filed by the defendants. Mr. Shri Kasliwal also submitted that it was for the plaintiff to establish his title and could not succeed on the weaknesses in the pleas raised in the written statement filed by the defendants. Mr. Kasliwal has relied upon number of decisions of Apex Court and Rajasthan High Court to buttress his submission, which shall be dealt with later on at the appropriate stages. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the record of the case, more particularly the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court, it emerges that the trial court while dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff had decided the issue No.2 in favour of the appellant by holding that the appellant-plaintiff was the owner of the disputed premises. Hence, adverting to the first contention raised by Mr. Amit Gupta for the appellant that the respondent No. 1 to 3 had not challenged the said finding by filing cross-objection, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 33 Civil Procedure Code which read as under: "33. Power of Court of Appeal. - The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees: Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under section 35A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order." 7. In view of the above, it is clear that the respondents without filing any cross-objection, could state that the finding against him recorded by the court below in respect of the issue ought to have been in his favour. In view of the above, it is clear that the respondents without filing any cross-objection, could state that the finding against him recorded by the court below in respect of the issue ought to have been in his favour. As rightly relied by Mr. Kasliwal upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ravindra Kumar Sharma (supra) and in case of Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education (supra), the filing of cross-objection after the 1976 amendment in Civil Procedure Code is purely optional and not mandatory. Hence, it was not incumbent on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to file cross-objection against finding No.2 recorded by the trial court in favour of appellant-plaintiff, and the said respondents could attack such adverse finding in the appeal without filing the cross-objection. In that view of the matter it is held that the respondents could attack in the appeal filed by the appellant the adverse findings recorded by the trial court without filing cross objections in the appeal. 8. Having held that, let us examine the evidence on record in order to decide, whether the trial court had committed any error in holding that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises and then in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff holding that defendants had become the owners by adverse possession. From the evidence on record, it emerges that it was not disputed before the trial court that Smt. Shanti M.13 Devi had purchased a chunk of land totally ad-measuring 2808 sq. yards from the Government as described in the sale-deed Ex. 4 on 20th March, 1948. It was also not disputed that the said Shanti M. Devi sold out part of the said land to the plaintiff Rajmal Jain as described in the sale deed dated 21.8.72 produced on record as Ex.2. The plaintiff Rajmal Jain also purchased a piece of land adjacent to the piece of land purchased from Shanti M. Devi, on the same day i.e. 21.8.72 from one Raghubir Sen as per the sale-deed Ex.3. The bone of contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. The plaintiff Rajmal Jain also purchased a piece of land adjacent to the piece of land purchased from Shanti M. Devi, on the same day i.e. 21.8.72 from one Raghubir Sen as per the sale-deed Ex.3. The bone of contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Kasliwal in the present appeal is that the measurement of east-west boundary towards south was 80 feet in the sale-deed Ex.4 whereas the measurement of east-west boundary towards south was 91.2 feet in the sale-deed Ex.2 and, therefore, the Shanti M. Devi could not have sold more than 80 feet of the east-west boundary towards south to the plaintiff. According to him, the disputed premises situated towards the eastern side of the plot purchased by the plaintiff from the said Shanti M. Devi, which was described as 'ABDF' in the map Ex.5, could not have been sold by the said Shanti M. Devi to the plaintiff. He further submitted that the said disputed premises was purchased by the respondents from one Govind Narain as per the sale-deed dated 26.4.86 Ex. A-33 and since then the respondents had become the owners of the disputed premises. In the alternative he has submitted that the respondents being in possession of the suit premises for more than 12 years as owners, they had become the owners by adverse possession. 9. Considering the submissions of Mr. Kasliwal for the respondents in the light of the evidence on record, the court does not find any substance therein. From the conjoint reading of the documents at Ex.2 and 4, it clearly transpires that out of the plot of land totally admeasuring 2880 sq. yards allotted to Smt. Shanti M. Devi by the erstwhile Jaipur Estate as per the instrument Ex.4 executed on 20.3.1948, the plaintiff Raj Mal Jain had purchased the leasehold ownership rights over the land admeasuring 213 se. yards only, from her as per the registered sale-deed dated 21.8.72 (Ex.2). The measurements, boundaries and description of the plots in both the instruments have been clearly mentioned. It further appears that on the same day i.e. on 21.8.72, the plaintiff Raj Mal Jain had also purchased a piece of land ad-measuring 16 sq. yards from one Shri Raghubir Sen by registered sale-deed (Ex.3). The said piece of land ad-measuring 16 sq. yards was just adjacent to the piece of land purchased from Shanti M. Devi. It further appears that on the same day i.e. on 21.8.72, the plaintiff Raj Mal Jain had also purchased a piece of land ad-measuring 16 sq. yards from one Shri Raghubir Sen by registered sale-deed (Ex.3). The said piece of land ad-measuring 16 sq. yards was just adjacent to the piece of land purchased from Shanti M. Devi. The measurements, boundaries and description of the said piece of land are also clearly mentioned in the sale-deed Ex.3. The map Ex. 5 also shows the boundaries and areas of land, which perfectly tally with the boundaries and areas of land mentioned in the sale-deeds Ex.2, Ex.3 and Ex.4. Considering the said documentary evidence there remains no shadow of doubt that the plaintiff had become the owner of the strip of land as mentioned in the sale-deeds Ex.2 and 3, which is shown as 'ABCD' in the map Ex.5. 10. Now the disputed area which was subject matter of the suit is the area shown as 'ABEF' in the map Ex. 5 situated on the eastern side of the said strip of land marked as 'CDEF' in the map Ex.5. At this juncture it is again pertinent to refer the sale-deed Ex.2 executed by Smt. Shanti M. Devi in favour of the plaintiff Raj Mal Jain. In the schedule contained in the said sale-deed Ex.2 it has been clearly mentioned as under: "SCHEDULE The Plot of land situated on Sansar Chandra Road near Government Hostel at Jaipur measuring East to West 92ft on North and 91.2 ft. on South and North to South 19 ft. in front 23 ft. at the back, comprising total area of 213 sq. yds. Having On and a half shops with tin-shed in front abutting on Sansar Chandra Road bounded as follows: ON NORTH:-By Plot No.A/4 sold to Shri Dharamchand Jain son of Shri Late Chhogalal Jain. ON SOUTH:- Petrol Pump. ON EAST:- By sansar Chandra Road; and ON WEST:- By the land of Shri R.Sen. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Vendor has executed this Sale Deed in favour of the said Purchaser on the date hereinbefore mentioned." 11. ON SOUTH:- Petrol Pump. ON EAST:- By sansar Chandra Road; and ON WEST:- By the land of Shri R.Sen. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Vendor has executed this Sale Deed in favour of the said Purchaser on the date hereinbefore mentioned." 11. It further transpires from the sale deed Ex.2 that the possession of the property sold through the said sale-deed was only symbolically handed over by the vendor Shanti M. Devi to the vendee Raj Mal Jai, as the showrooms situated thereon were occupied by the tenant Dharam Chand Sukhlecha of Jaipur. The plaintiff Ram Mal Jain thereafter appears to have filed the suit being No. 117/81 in the Court of Addl. Magistrate, Jaipur, against Shri Moti Chand S/o Dharam Chand and others for the recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises. In the said suit it appears that the defendant Moti Chand had made an application seeking better particulars from the plaintiff Raj Mal Chand (Ex.A/2/1), to which the plaintiff Raj Mal Jain had given reply (Ex.A/3/1). The said documents were produced by the defendants in the present suit, however they do not appear to have been duly proved. In any case, even though the said documents are taken into consideration, it transpires that the plaintiff in the said suit had filed a reply (Ex. A/3/1) to the effect that there were sub-tenants in the suit premises and that he did not know the names of the said sub-tenants. It further appears that in the said suit a Commissioner for local inspection was also appointed, who after visiting the site in question submitted the report which was produced by the defendants in the instant case at Ex. A/4/1. Much emphasis has been placed by the learned counsel Mr. Kasliwal for the respondents on the said report to submit that there was a mention of a liquor shop, in the name and style of "Naveen Wines" owned by Govind Narain. Mr. Kasliwal, therefore, submitted that the said Naveen Wines shop being possessed by the respondents since the year 1982, which was subsequently purchased by them from the said Shri Govind Narain as per the registered sale-deed Ex. A-33, the respondents had become the absolute owners of the said shop which was part of the disputed premises. In the opinion of the court there is also no substance in the said submission of Mr. Kasliwal. A-33, the respondents had become the absolute owners of the said shop which was part of the disputed premises. In the opinion of the court there is also no substance in the said submission of Mr. Kasliwal. It is settled legal position that the Commissioner could be appointed by the court for local inspection to elucidating the matter in dispute, under Order 26, Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code and not for the collection of the evidence. Apart from the fact that the Commissioner could not have stated whether Govind Narain was the owner of the shop namely "Naveen Wines" or not without any basis, the said remarks of the Commissioner in the said report could not be treated as an evidence to determine the ownership of the said shop. So far as the sale-deed Ex. A-33 relied upon by the respondents is concerned, there is no mention therein as to whether any such liquor shop in the name and style of "Naveen Wines" was being run by the respondents or not. The description and boundaries of the shop sold by the said Govind Narain Sharma to the respondents Smt. Bhanwari Devi and Anil Kumar also do not tally with the description of disputed premises mentioned in the map Ex.5. As against that it was clearly established by the plaintiff that the plaintiff had become the owner of the land marked as "ABCD" in the map Ex.5 by virtue of the sale-deeds Ex. 2 and 3, and that the disputed premises marked as "ABEF" being part of the land marked as "ABCD" in the said map Ex.5., only the plaintiff was the owner of the disputed premises. In view of the sale-deeds Exs. 2,3 & 4 the said Govind Narain could not have sold the disputed premises to the respondents, when the plaintiff Raj Mal Jain was the owner of the disputed premises. Since nobody could pass over better title than what he has, the said Govind Narain could not have passed the title of the disputed premises to the respondents under the sale-deed Ex.A/33. 12. Since nobody could pass over better title than what he has, the said Govind Narain could not have passed the title of the disputed premises to the respondents under the sale-deed Ex.A/33. 12. At this juncture it is also very pertinent to note that the respondents on one hand have claimed ownership rights over the disputed premises on the basis of the title derived by them from the said Govind Narain and on the other hand have claimed ownership by adverse possession, on the ground that they were in possession of the disputed premises for more than 12 years. It is settled legal position that the defendants could not take such inconsistent plea as regards the ownership. In this regard the Apex Court in case of L.N. Aswathama & Anr. v. P. Prakash, (2009) 13 SCC 229 , has categorically held in para 17 as under: "The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the property has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, the period for prescription will not commence." 13. In view of the above stated ratio of judgment, it clearly emerges that the pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and that the plea of adverse possession does not begin to operate until the plea on title is renounced. In the instant case the respondents-defendants had claimed ownership by adverse possession simultaneously with the plea of having become owners on the basis of title allegedly derived from the said Shri Govind Narain. Such inconsistent pleas could not be permitted to be raised. That apart, it is equally settled legal position that for claiming ownership by adverse possession, the respondents had to prove that their possession over the disputed premises was not only actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, and notorious but also hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding 12 years. Such inconsistent pleas could not be permitted to be raised. That apart, it is equally settled legal position that for claiming ownership by adverse possession, the respondents had to prove that their possession over the disputed premises was not only actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, and notorious but also hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding 12 years. In the instant case, though it was proved by the respondents that they were in possession of the wine shop namely "Naveen Wines" situated in the disputed premises for more than 12 years, they had failed to prove by leading any evidence much less cogent evidence that the said possession was exclusive, open, uninterrupted and hostile to the true owner i.e. the plaintiff Raj Mal Jain. When they raised the plea of adverse possession, it is presumed that they had renounced their plea based on title, and had accepted the plaintiff as the owner of the disputed premises. 14. The learned counsel Mr. Kasliwal for the respondents has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Des Raj & Ors. v. Bhagat Ram (Dead) By LRs. & Ors., JT 2007 (5) SC 299 : 2007 (52) AIC 9 (SC) (Sum.) , to submit that merely because the respondents did not use terminology which they should have, would not ipso facto mean that the ingredients for satisfying the requirements of Statute were absent. There cannot be any disagreement with the said proposition laid down by the Apex Court, however it is significant to note that in the said judgment also it was observed that mere assertion of title by itself may not be sufficient unless the party proves animus possidendi. In the other judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel Mr. Kasliwal also the law on adverse possession has been discussed, however, none of the said judgments is helpful to the respondents. In the other judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel Mr. Kasliwal also the law on adverse possession has been discussed, however, none of the said judgments is helpful to the respondents. In the latest decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors., 2009 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 69 : (2009) 16 SCC 517 , after discussing number of earlier decisions, the Apex Court has held inter alia that "the ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be nec vi nec clam nec precario and the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor." 15. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the respondents have not only not pleaded specifically in their written statement but have miserably failed to prove that their possession was hostile to the true owner i.e. the appellant plaintiff. In that view of the matter it is held that the trial court has committed an error of law in holding that the respondents-defendants had become owners by prescription as they were in possession of the disputed premises for more than 12 years. The trial court while deciding the issue No.8 and 12 has no where discussed as to how the possession of the respondents defendants of the disputed premises was adverse to the appellant-plaintiff. The said findings with regard to the adverse possession recorded by the trial court in favour of the respondents being in utter disregard of the settled legal position and being based on no evidence, the said findings are required to be set aside, and it is required to be held that the appellant-plaintiff being the true owner of the disputed premises, is entitled to recover the possession of the same from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and is also entitled to get the permanent injunction as prayed for in the suit. 16. For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is set aside and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff is decreed in terms of the prayers sought in the plaint. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.Appeal Allowed. *******