L. N. Mittal, J.— (Oral) Legal representatives of Bhola Ram contesting defendant no. 1 are in second appeal having partly lost in both the courts below. Suit was filed by respondents no. 1 and 2/plaintiffs against Bhola Ram as defendant no. 1 and against respondents no. 3 to 7 as proforma defendants along with one Bal Kishan (not party to the instant second appeal or in the first appeal). Plaintiffs claimed that they along with proforma defendants are owners in possession of the suit land depicted by letters ABCD in red colour in the site plan enclosed with the plaint and defendant no. 1 threatened to encroach upon the same by raising construction and thereby closing gate, windows, ventilators etc. existing in southern wall of house of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants. Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 1 from doing so. Plaintiffs also sought mandatory injunction directing defendant no. 1 to remove illegal construction, if any, that may be raised in the disputed land during pendency of the suit. Defendants denied the plaint averments and claimed to be owners in possession of the suit land. Courts below have partly decreed the suit for mandatory injunction directing contesting defendant no. 1 to remove water tank existing in the disputed land adjacent to southern wall of the house of the plaintiffs. Suit regarding relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of defendant no. 1 have filed this second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the appellants contended that both the courts below have found that the suit land is not owned by plaintiffs and proforma defendants and therefore, mandatory injunction as granted by the courts below could not be granted at the instance of the plaintiffs. Counsel for the respondents contended that defendant no. 1 is also not owner of the suit land and therefore, he has no right to raise construction therein and mandatory injunction directing removal of the construction made by defendant no. 1 has been rightly granted. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The plaintiffs approached the court seeking relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction alleging that they along with proforma defendants are owners in possession of the suit land. 1 has been rightly granted. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The plaintiffs approached the court seeking relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction alleging that they along with proforma defendants are owners in possession of the suit land. However, it has been held by both the courts below that plaintiffs are neither owners nor in possession of the suit land. The said finding has not been assailed in any manner. In view of said finding, mandatory injunction as granted by the courts below could not have been granted at the instance of plaintiffs on the basis of their alleged title and possession which they failed to prove. Both the courts thus committed grave error in law by granting mandatory injunction. Substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this second appeal as to whether in spite of holding that plaintiffs and proforma defendants are not owners of the suit land, mandatory injunction at the instance of the plaintiffs directing defendant no. 1 to remove water tank constructed by him in the suit land could be granted. For the reasons aforesaid, the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered in negative i. e. against the plaintiffs and in favour of the appellants. No such mandatory injunction could be granted at the instance of the plaintiffs who are not owners of the suit property. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is allowed. Judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set aside. Suit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed, leaving, however, the parties to suffer their respective costs throughout.