redeemed and the recovery of possession of the property could not be, therefore, sought. The judgment is relevant to the extent that the plaintiffs were owners of property but had mortgaged the property to the defendants. If present suit is for the relief of injunction on the basis that the property had fallen into their possession, the only relevant issue was the finding regarding possession. If the defendants' reliance was only on the judgment which was disposed of in the year 1952 referring to the fact that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery of possession, it cannot prevail any longer now when the suit is filed not for redemption of mortgage but for injunction. The injunction relief must be considered only in the context of whether the plaintiffs are able to prove their possession or not. That proof was available before the Courts below by reference to the revenue entries. It will be the most reliable document to pronounce the judgment in a suit brought by a party claiming to be in possession and I will find no error in the approach adopted by the Courts below. The previous judgment, far from helping the defendants to assert any independent right to the property, would confine a predecessor's right as mortgagee, who could not have held back the possession if the mortgage had been redeemed. I do not know whether the mortgage had been redeemed or not. If the suit was for the bare relief of injunction and the plaintiffs were relying on the revenue entries and there is no reference to the defendant or his predecessor as party in possession, I take them to be sufficient basis for the Courts below to render a judgment in favour of the plaintiffs.
