this registered document, the plaintiff has remained in continuous and peaceful possession of the property. The defendants started interfering with the said possession when the plaintiff commenced construction over the suit land. After the objections raised by the private defendants, respondents 7 & 8 issued a show cause notice directing the plaintiff to remove the building materials collected on-site. Furthermore, the plaintiff made complaints (Ex.P/5 & P/6 respectively) before the concerned Collector and raised objections during construction of a stage. She submits that the Khasra Map (Ex.P/7) and Nazri Naksha (Ex.P/8) annexed with the plaint demonstrate the plaintiff’s ownership and possession, as well as the construction raised by the plaintiff, which has been disputed by the defendants. Consequently, in order to restrain the defendants, the plaintiff has rightly instituted the suit. She further submits that while the trial Court considered the subject saledeed, it failed to consider the plaintiff’s long-standing ancestral possession since 1933. In doing so, the trial Court travelled to an area by focusing on issues irrelevant to the question of possession. She further submits that the measurement of the suit land, along with its specific boundaries, has been clearly detailed in the pleadings and supporting documents. Therefore, the trial Court’s finding that the identification of the suit land is disputed, purportedly based on a perusal of the sale-deed and documentary evidence, is contradictory to the evidence on record. The trial Court failed to properly appreciate both the documentary and oral
