JUDGMENT : PRAKASH GUPTA, J. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge, Kishangarh Baas (Alwar) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Court’), dated 27.02.1997 in Civil Regular First Appeal No. 67/1991 whereby the judgment and decree passed by Munsif Magistrate, Kishangarh Baas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) dated 01.09.1990 in Civil Suit No. 43/1987 were set aside and appeal filed by the respondents-defendants was allowed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the suit for demolition and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff-appellants before the trial court wherein it is mentioned that the disputed property which has been shown by Blue colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint and marked as ABCD situated in village Begheri Kalan, Tehsil Kishangarh Bas, is an ancestral property of the plaintiff and they are the owners and are in actual possession of the same. It is also alleged in the plaint that on the eastern side after leaving some space, the property of the defendants is situated which has been shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint by Green colour. In the said site plan, the property shown by Red colour belongs to the plaintiffs and defendants have constructed a boundary wall. It is prayed that the defendants may be directed, to demolish the said boundary wall and a decree of a permanent injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing the written statement. They have denied the plaint allegation. It is alleged in the written statement that property in question belongs to the defendant-Richhpal and he is in possession of the said property. Land shown on western side of BC belongs to the defendants. The eastern side of ABCD land also belongs to the defendants and the northern side of the property belongs to the defendants. The property shown by Red colour and marked as ABCD belongs to Richhpal, who is in physical possession since the time of ancestors. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as five issues. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence on the issues. The property shown by Red colour and marked as ABCD belongs to Richhpal, who is in physical possession since the time of ancestors. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as five issues. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence on the issues. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, the learned trial court had decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and consequently decree of permanent injunction and demolition of wall was passed in favour of the plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court an appeal was preferred by the defendants before the appellate court which came to be allowed on 27.02.1997 and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court has been set aside. 3. Hence, this second appeal. 4. This appeal was admitted on 19.09.2006 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the learned appellate court has committed illegality by allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in spite of the fact that the learned appellate court has upheld the finding given by the learned trial court in relation to the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the disputed property.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant Shri R.K. Mathur that both the courts have concurrently held that the property belongs to the plaintiffs-appellants and plaintiffs are also having the legal title. The learned first appellate court without giving any reason reversed the decree passed by the trial court. It is submitted that in the plaint, decree for demolition of the wall had been sought. In view of this, the learned first appellate court is wrong in holding that suit had been filed only for permanent injunction and without possession suit is not maintainable. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Shri Dinesh Yadav has submitted that the suit was filed only for permanent injunction and the learned appellate court is right in holding that the plaintiffs are not in possession and without possession mere suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. No relief for possession was sought by the plaintiffs. Inspite of this fact, the learned trial court wrongly decreed the suit fled by the plaintiff. 8. No relief for possession was sought by the plaintiffs. Inspite of this fact, the learned trial court wrongly decreed the suit fled by the plaintiff. 8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Ranbir Singh v. Executive Engineer, (2011) 15 SCC 453, Sushil Kumar Sabharwal v. Gurpreet Singh, (2002) 5 SCC 377 : RLW 2002 (4) SC 547. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as rulings cited by the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record carefully and minutely. 10. It is revealed from the judgment passed by the learned first appellate court that learned appellate court observed that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in holding the title of the plaintiffs in relation to the property. The findings given by the learned first appellate court in this regard are reproduced as under:- ^^mijksDr foospu ls eSa Hkh ;g ikrk gwa fd fooknxzLr tehu ij LokfeRo oknhx.k dk gh gSaA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl ekeysa esa dksbZ xyrh r; djus esa ugha dh gSA** 11. But the learned first appellate court further observed that in a suit for injunction possession is necessary and the trial court has not discussed anything about the possession and it is proved from the evidence that plaintiffs are not in possession and without possession, no decree for permanent injunction can be passed in their favour. 12. It is beneficial to reproduce the relief claimed by the plaintiffs in the plaint which reads as under:- ^^vr% ÁkFkZuk gS fd okn fuEu Ádkj fMØh fd;k tkos %& ¼v½ Áfroknhx.k us tks MUMk feu oknhx.k dh tk;nkn esa djhc 3 QqV rkehj fd;k gS dks felekj djk;k tkos ftldks uD'kk oknhx.k esa ,sŒchŒlhŒ jax yky ls fn[kk;k x;k gSA ¼c½ Áfroknhx.k dks Hkfo"; esa gqDebErukg nokeh ls ikcUn fd;k tkos fd oks tk;nkn eqruktk feYdh;roknhx.k esa fdlh Ádkj dh dksbZ rkehj u djsaA** 13. In my considered view by raising boundary wall over the disputed property, this by itself does not constitute possession and there is no legal requirement for the plaintiff to seek a decree for possession against the defendants in these circumstances. Plaintiffs sought the indulgence of the Court for passing direction for demolition of the said boundary wall, which is sufficient. In my considered view by raising boundary wall over the disputed property, this by itself does not constitute possession and there is no legal requirement for the plaintiff to seek a decree for possession against the defendants in these circumstances. Plaintiffs sought the indulgence of the Court for passing direction for demolition of the said boundary wall, which is sufficient. In view of the above, the learned appellate court has committed illegality by allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court inspite of the fact that the learned appellate court has upheld the finding given by the learned trial court in relation to the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the disputed property. Further, as per the plaint allegation the defendants constructed the boundary wall on the mid night of 24-25/05/1987 and immediately thereafter the plaintiff filed the present suit on 27/5/1987. In these circumstances the defendants had no possession, much less settled possession over the disputed land. For all practical purposes, the plaintiff remained in possession over the disputed land and thus they were not obliged to seek the relief of possession. 14. Hence, substantial question of law framed by this Court on 19.09.2006 is decided in favour of the appellant and this appeal deserves to be allowed. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed and judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is hereby set aside and judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 01.09.1990 is hereby restored. No order as to costs.