Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Preet Pal Singh for the petitioners and Sri B.D. Pandey holding brief of Sri Neeraj Shukla for the respondents. 3. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaunpur dated 29.5.2013 rejecting the application of the petitioners for temporary injunction filed in O.S. No. 55 of 2012 and Additional District Judge, dated 30.11.2013 dismissing the appeal from the aforesaid order. 4. The petitioners filed a suit (registered as Original Suit No. 55 of 2012) for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the land shown by letters 'A,B,C,D,E,I,J,K in plaint map. It has been stated by the petitioners that the land in dispute was earlier recorded as plot no. 639/3 and after consolidation its new number has been allotted as plot no. 86 ka' which is recorded as abadi land. The petitioners have their house, madaha, nad, khunta etc over part of it and planted five mango trees and two neem trees over part of the land recorded as plot no. 639/3, prior to consolidation operation in the village. The land in dispute was vested in the petitioners under Section 9 of UP Act No. 1 of 1951. On the similar allegations, the petitioners also filed an application for interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. The respondents contested the application for interim injunction and have stated that the land in dispute was not the appurtenant land of the house of the petitioners and they have nothing to do with it. The trees have been planted by the defendants over the land in dispute. 5. The trial court also issued a commission for spot inspection. The Commissioner after spot inspection submitted his report dated 06.02.2012 in which the land noted by letters 'A,B,C,D,E,F is shown towards east of the house of the defendants whose entrance is shown towards west while house of plaintiffs is shown towards the south of the house of defendants and sahan land of the plaintiffs is shown towards west of their house. By letters M-1 and M-2 two Madaha of the plaintiffs are shown toward west of their house. By letters M-1 and M-2 two Madaha of the plaintiffs are shown toward west of their house. Both the parties have filed objection against the Commissioner's report which is pending for disposal, however, the application for interim injunction was heard by trial court. The trial court by order dated 29.5.2013 found that from perusal of the Commissioner's report, it has been established that the length of the disputed land is more than 150 fit and width is more than 100 fit. The plaintiffs could not prove their title over the land in dispute which appears to have vested in State of UP and State of UP, has not been arrayed as defendant in the suit. While the sahan and Madaha of the plaintiffs are situated towards west of their house. On the aforesaid reason, inference was drawn that the petitioners, could not prove their prima facie case, as such, injunction application was rejected holding that State of UP was necessary party in the suit. 6. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 88 of 2013) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Additional District Judge who by judgment dated 30.11.2013 found that the findings of trial court regarding the prima facie case of the plaintiffs as well as balance of convenience do not suffer from any illegality. On these findings, the appeal was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submits that consolidation in the village was started prior to 1985 and during consolidation, field to field partal was done and on its basis CH Form 2A was prepared. Plot no. 639/3 (area 0.91 acre) was recorded as matruk of khata no. 173, however in this plot, five mango trees and two neem trees belonging to Ramjeet, grand father of the petitioners was noted and his house has been noted in plot no. 640. In the Commissioner's report also five mango tree and two neem trees, which situate in the middle portion of plot no. 86'ka', have been noted. He further submits that in the Commissioner's report, the house and western portion of the land was found as sahen land of the petitioners over which their two madaha as well as other miscellaneous works have been denoted. 86'ka', have been noted. He further submits that in the Commissioner's report, the house and western portion of the land was found as sahen land of the petitioners over which their two madaha as well as other miscellaneous works have been denoted. Thus, from the aforesaid records, prima facie case of the petitioners over the entire land situated in the western side of their house was fully established. In the same way, prima facie case of the petitioners over five mango trees as well as two neem trees on plot no. 86'ka' have also been established. The entrance of houses of the defendants were towards west while plot 86'ka' is towards east of their house. In the injunction suit, normally wrong doers are made parties. As the defendants were threatening to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs as such they alone were impleaded as the defendants. The courts below have committed illegality in rejecting the application for interim injunction and dismissing the appeal of the petitioners. 8. The counsel for the respondents submitted that in CH Form 2A, the houses of the petitioners were noted on plot no. 640 and not in plot no. 639/3. From Commissioner's report it is found that house of the petitioners was situated towards south of the house of the defendants and their sahen was lying towards west of their house. Under Section 9 of UP Act No. 1 of 1951, the land, which was appurtenant to the house of the petitioners was vested. So far as plot no. 86'ka' is concerned, it was not appurtenant land and was not vested. The consolidation authorities have found that this was an abadi land as such the other noting made by the Consolidation Officer in this respect have no evidenciary value and could not be relied upon. In any case, age of the trees were noted as 6 years in 1985 as such on the date of vesting possession of the plaintiffs over plot no. 86'ka' was not proved. In such circumstances the courts below have rightly rejected the injunction application of the petitioners. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. Under Section 9 of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 wells, tree in abadi of all buildings have been vested to the private persons. 86'ka' was not proved. In such circumstances the courts below have rightly rejected the injunction application of the petitioners. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. Under Section 9 of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 wells, tree in abadi of all buildings have been vested to the private persons. So far as the land towards south of the house of the defendants and towards west of the house of the petitioners, there is no dispute by the defendants. The Commissioner has also found two madaha and others miscellaneous works of the plaintiffs over it. Thus prima facie case of the plaintiffs over the land situated towards south of the house of the defendants and towards west of the house of the petitioners has been proved. So far as the land of plot no. 86'Ka' is concerned, no one claimed their titles over it. Entrance of the house of the defendants is towards west while this land situate towards east of their house as such it is neither appurtenant to the plaintiff's house nor of the defendant's house. 10. So far as CH-Form 2A filed by the petitioners is concerned, in plot 639/3 (new plot 86'ka') five mango trees and two neem trees belonging to grand father of the petitioners were noted in it. According to the petitioners, these trees were found in the Commissioner's report in the middle of the land denoted as 86'ka'. The counsel for the respondents submits that in the year 1985, age of these trees were noted as six years as such, these trees were not in existence on the date of vesting and were not vested in the petitioners under Section 9 of the Act. Even if the land was not vested in the ancestors of the petitioners, prima facie it was proved that these trees were planted by the ancestors of the petitioners. The land being abadi land, a person having better title, can alone eject the petitioners from it. In such circumstances, the prima facie case of the petitioners in respect of five mango trees and two neem trees on plot 86'ka' is also proved. The courts below have illegally held that prima facie case of the petitioners has not been proved and illegally rejected the application for interim injunction of the petitioners without examining the relevant materials on record. 11. The courts below have illegally held that prima facie case of the petitioners has not been proved and illegally rejected the application for interim injunction of the petitioners without examining the relevant materials on record. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions the writ petition is disposed of granting interim injunction to the petitioners restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the land lying towards south of the land denoted by letters 'K, L' in the Commissioner's map and five mango trees and two neem trees on plot no. 86'ka', during pendency of the suit. It may be noted that the findings recorded by this Court is only relevant for the purposes of disposing of the application for interim injunction. It is not relevant for deciding the suit on merit and the court below will not be influenced by the order of this Court while deciding the suit on merit. ______________