possession is concerned, since the suit is filed for the relief of possession. The main contention of the appellant herein is that in the absence of any suit for declaration when there was a cloud on the title of the plaintiff, both the Courts ought not to have proceeded to pass an order of injunction. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the appellant has not disputed the fact that an application is filed before the Land Tribunal for granting occupancy right. The learned counsel would contend that the occupancy right was claimed against one Chandu Shetty and though at the first instance it was granted, subsequently it was cancelled. The learned counsel would contend that the legal heirs of Chandu Shetty have also filed a suit against the plaintiffs. It is not in dispute that the said suit filed against the plaintiffs is also dismissed and no doubt, the appeal is pending before the Court in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that is also subject to the result of the appeal, but the said appeal is not filed by the appellant herein. The appellant himself admits that the occupancy right granted in his favour was cancelled. When such being the case, the appellant cannot contend that he is in lawful possession. The learned counsel would contend that in the
