Even when PW1, the power of attorney holder of first respondent was examined, there was no case for first respondent that plaint B schedule property is in the posssession of first respondent. The only case was that plaint B schedule property was used as a way to reach the plaint A schedule property. The trial court on evidence found that first respondent did not establish any right of way. First appellate court did not differ with that finding and did not find that first respondent has a right of way over plaint B schedule property. On the other hand, it was found that first respondent is in possession of plaint B schedule property and a person in possession is entitled to file a suit for injunction and as the attempt of appellant/defendant is to enclose the property by constructing a compound wall, it was held that respondent is entitled to a decree for injunction. As rightly argued by learned counsel appearing for appellant when first respondent herself has no such case either in the pleading or at the time of evidence, first appellate court was
