# Kushwaha Mahasabha & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 47
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-24
- **Case number:** Public Interest Litigation No. 1969 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kushwaha-mahasabha-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49684
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sri A.K. Goyal, Addl. C.S.C., Sri Siddhartha
Srivastava

A.
Public
Interest
Litigation(PIL)-
Constitution of India,1950-Article 226Mainatainability-Suppression of material
facts-Petitioners deliberately concealed
factum of petitioner No. 2 being a
Government
employee
working
as
Assistant Teacher under basic education
board-He has further concealed factum of
various criminal cases registered by him/
against
him
against/by
private
respondents-PIL dismissed with heavy
cost. (Para 1 to 22)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Kushwaha Mahasabha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
47
Vs. Lokesh & 2 Others), arising out of
Case Crime 296 of 2007, against the
accused-appellants, is set aside.

58. The accused appellants- Dani and
Indra, who are reported to be in jail since
2007, shall be released forthwith, unless
they are wanted in any other case on
compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
whereas the accused-appellant Lokesh, who
is reported to be on bail, need not surrender
and his bail bonds shall stand discharged
subject to compliance of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C.

59. Let a copy of this judgment be
sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hathras henceforth, who shall transmit the
same to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for release of the accused-appellants in
terms of this judgment.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 47
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Public Interest Litigation No. 1969 of 2022

Kushwaha Mahasabha & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Gulab Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Goyal, Addl. C.S.C., Sri Siddhartha
Srivastava

A.
Public
Interest
Litigation(PIL)-
Constitution of India,1950-Article 226Mainatainability-Suppression of material
facts-Petitioners deliberately concealed
factum of petitioner No. 2 being a
Government
employee
working
as
Assistant Teacher under basic education
board-He has further concealed factum of
various criminal cases registered by him/
against
him
against/by
private
respondents-PIL dismissed with heavy
cost. (Para 1 to 22)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Abhyudya Sanstha Vs U.O.I. (2011) 6 SCC
145

2. Hari Narain Vs Badri Das (1963) AIR SC 1558

3. G. Narayanswamy Reddy Vs Govt. of
Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261

4. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114

5. Moti Lal Songara Vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu &
anr. (2013) 9 SCC 199

6. Amar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69

7. Kishore Samrite Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2013) 2
SCC 398

8. ABCD Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2020) SCC 52

9. Pushpa Devi M. Jatia Vs M.L. Wadhawan etc.
(1987) 3 SCC 367

10. Shashi Vs Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC
421

11. K.D. Sharma Vs SAIL & ors. (2008) 12 SCC
481

12. Dhananjay Sharma Vs St. of Har. & ors.
(1995) 3 SCC 757

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Present petition was filed by the
petitioner claiming it to be in public
interest, praying for the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of writ of mandamus
commanding to the respondent District
Maqgistrate to proceed to take necessary
action
for
removing
unauthorized
constructions and obstructions raised by the
private respondents over the land No. 509,
510, 567, 569, 570, 571 Saidpur Hakins
District Bareilly which has been axquired
for carrying out Mini Bye Pass Road for
public convenience within reasonable time,
to meet out the ends of justice.

ii) Issue writ order or direction in
the
nature
of
writ
of
mandamus
commanding to the respondent authorities
to get the public money amount of
compensation wrongly received by the
respondent Anupama recovered from her
with appropriate interest and to initiate
penal action against her for playing fraud
with the authorities in the interest of justice
within stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble
Court.

iii) Issue writ order or direction in
the nature of writ of Ad interim mandamus
commanding to the respondent District
Magistrate to take appropriate action on the
complaint dated 05.07.2022 preventing
obstructions and encroachment over the
public utility land of Mini Bye Pass Road
situated in village Saidpur Hakins, District
Bareilly within reasonable time to secure
the ends of justice."

2. Counter affidavit has been filed by
the private respondents in November, 2022,
copy thereof was given to the petitioners'
counsel on November 28, 2022, but till date
no rejoinder affidavit has been filed. An
adjournment has been sought for filing the
same, which we decline as sufficient time
was available with the petitioners to file
rejoinder affidavit specially keeping in view
the pleadings made in the counter affidavit.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the
private respondents, copy of the F.I.R. has
been annexed, which was lodged by the
private respondent No. 5 against petitioner
No. 2 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and
471 I.P.C., P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly. It
is further pleaded in the counter affidavit that
after investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against petitioner no. 2 and the Court
concerned has even taken cognizance and the
trial is pending.

4. As a counter, petitioner No. 2 got one
F.I.R. registered against respondent No. 5
under Sections 195, 195-A and 420 I.P.C.,
P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly in which
respondent No. 5 was arrested, released on
bail. In that also the charge-sheet has been
filed. However, in a Criminal Misc.
Application No. 31925 of 2022, filed by
respondent No. 5 for quashing of the F.I.R.
and further proceedings, an interim stay has
been granted by this Court on October 10,
2022. The matter is still pending.

5. It is further pleaded that even wife of
respondent No. 5 got one F.I.R. registered
against petitioner No. 2 under Sections 147,
148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 504, 506 and 427
I.P.C., P.S. Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly, in
which the charge-sheet has been submitted.

6. It is further pleaded that another
F.I.R. was lodged by domestic helper of
respondent No. 5 against petitioner No. 2
under Sections 147, 427, 323, 394 and 336
I.P.C., P.S. Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly, in
which investigation is going on.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 2 filed
an application under Section 156 (3)
2 All. Kushwaha Mahasabha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
49
against respondents No. 4 and 5 which was
dismissed by the Special Judge, Prevention
of Corruption, Court No. 1, Bareilly vide
order dated September 24, 2021.

8. Respondent no. 5 also filed an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
against petitioner No. 2 and others before
the
Special
Judge,
Prevention
of
Corruption, Court no. 1, Bareilly, which
was treated as a complaint case vide order
dated March 28, 2022.

9. Still further, it is pleaded in the
counter affidavit that petitioner No. 2 is
working as Assistant Teacher under the
Basic Education Board and is presently
posted
at
Middle
School
(Poorv
Madhyamik Vidyalaya), Sindhauli, District
Bareilly.

10. In para-12 of the counter affidavit,
it is pleaded that petitioner No. 2 is a
history-sheeter. The petition filed by him
before this Court bearing Criminal. Misc.
Writ Petition No. 11931 of 2020 for closing
the history-sheet, was dismissed by this
Court on October 14, 2022.

11. At page-54 of the counter affidavit,
a communication from the Superintendent of
Police, Bareily to the District Magistrate,
Bareilly way back in the year 2017, has been
annexed, wherein details of various cases
registered against petitioner No. 2 have been
mentioned which reads as under:-

"i) Case Crime No. 162A of 1989
under Sections 149, 307, 323 I.P.C., Police
Station Meerganj, District Bareilly;

ii) Case Crime No. 74 of 1996
under Sections 307, 504 I.P.C., Police Station
Meerganj, District Bareilly;

iii) Case Crime No. 773 of 2014
under Sections 147, 148, 447, 511, 307, 504,
506 I.P.C., Police Station Izzat Nagar, District
Bareilly;

iv) Case Crime No. 140 of 2017
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 323,
504, 506, 427, 341 I.P.C., Police Station Izzat
Nagar, District Bareilly;

v) Case Crime No. 164 of 2017
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427 I.P.C.,
Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly;

vi) Case Crime No. 165 of 2017
under Sections 188 I.P.C. and 30 Arms Act,
Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly;"

12. In the instructions received by
learned counsel for the State, there is
nothing mentioned about the credentials of
petitioner No. 2 or that he is a Government
employee, however, what has been stated
is that there is no double payment of
compensation to the private respondent
and
as
regards
encroachments,
a
Committee was constituted to look into
that aspect and it was found that there was
no encroachment.

13. A perusal of the writ petition
shows
that
the
petitioners
have
deliberately concealed the factum of
petitioner No. 2 being a Government
employee working as Assistant Teacher
under the Basic Education Board. He has
further concealed the factum of various
criminal cases registered by him/against
him against/by the private respondents.

14. In view of the above, it is clear
that there is material concealment of fact
in the present case.

15. As to how a litigant who conceals
material facts from the Court, has to be
dealt with, has been gone through by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court time and again
and the consistent opinion is that he is not
entitled even to be heard on merits.
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. In Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union
of India (2011) 6 SCC 145, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court, while declining relief to
the petitioners therein, who did not
approach the court with clean hands,
opined as under:

"18. ... In our view, the appellants
deserve to be non suited because they have
not approached the Court with clean hands.
The plea of inadvertent mistake put
forward by the learned senior counsel for
the appellants and their submission that the
Court may take lenient view and order
regularisation of the admissions already
made sounds attractive but does not merit
acceptance.
Each
of
the
appellants
consciously made a statement that it had
been granted recognition by the NCTE,
which necessarily implies that recognition
was granted in terms of Section 14 of the
Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the
2007 Regulations. Those managing the
affairs of the appellants do not belong to
the
category
of
innocent,
illiterate/uneducated persons, who are not
conversant with the relevant statutory
provisions and the court process. The very
fact that each of the appellants had
submitted LPASW No. 82/2019 Page 7
application in terms of Regulation 7 and
made itself available for inspection by the
team constituted by WRC, Bhopal shows
that they were fully aware of the fact that
they can get recognition only after fulfilling
the conditions specified in the Act and the
Regulations and that WRC, Bhopal had not
granted
recognition
to
them.
Notwithstanding this, they made bold
statement that they had been granted
recognition by the competent authority and
thereby succeeded in persuading this Court
to entertain the special leave petitions and
pass interim orders. The minimum, which
can be said about the appellants is that they
have not approached the Court with clean
hands and succeeded in polluting the
stream of justice by making patently false
statement. Therefore, they are not entitled
to relief under Article 136 of the
Constitution. This view finds support from
plethora of precedents.

19. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das
AIR 1963 SC 1558, G. Narayanaswamy
Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka (1991) 3
SCC 261 and large number of other cases,
this
Court
denied
relief
to
the
petitioner/appellant on the ground that he
had not approached the Court with clean
hands. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das
(supra), the Court revoked the leave
granted to the appellant and observed:

"It is of utmost importance that in
making material statements and setting
forth grounds in applications for special
leave made under Article 136 of the
Constitution, care must be taken not to
make any statements which are inaccurate,
untrue or misleading. In dealing with
applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and
grounds of fact contained in the petitions at
their face value and it LPASW No. 82/2019
Page 8 would be unfair to betray the
confidence of the Court by making
statements
which
are
untrue
and
misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the
appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that
the material statements made by the
appellant in his application for special
leave are inaccurate and misleading, and
the respondent is entitled to contend that
the appellant may have obtained special
leave from the Supreme Court on the
strength of what he characterises as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the
petition for special leave, the Supreme
Court may come to the conclusion that in
2 All. Kushwaha Mahasabha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
51
such a case special leave granted to the
appellant ought to be revoked."

20. In G. Narayanaswamy
Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka's case
(supra), the Court while noticing the fact
regarding the stay order passed by the High
Court which prevented passing of the
award by the Land Acquisition Officer
within the prescribed time period was
concealed and in the aforesaid context, it
observed that :

"2. ... Curiously enough, there is
no reference in the special leave petitions to
any of the stay orders and we came to know
about
these
orders
only
when
the
respondents appeared in response to the
notice and filed their counter- affidavit. In
our view, the said interim orders have a
direct bearing on the question raised and
the non-disclosure of the same certainly
amounts to suppression of material facts.
On this ground alone, the special leave
petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well
settled in law that the relief under Article
136 of the Constitution is discretionary and
a petitioner who approaches this Court for
such relief must come with frank and full
disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and
suppresses material facts, his application is
liable to be dismissed. We accordingly
dismiss the special leave petitions."

21. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.
(2010) 2 SCC 114, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court noticed the progressive decline in the
values of life and observed:

"1. For many centuries Indian
society cherished two basic values of life
i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahinsa" (non-
violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and
Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to
ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth
constituted an integral part of the justice-
delivery system which was in vogue in the
pre-Independence era and the people used
to feel proud to tell truth in the courts
irrespective of the consequences. However,
post-Independence period has seen drastic
changes
in
our
value
system.
The
materialism has overshadowed the old
ethos and the quest for personal gain has
become so intense that those involved in
litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood,
misrepresentation
and
suppression
of
facts
in
the
court
proceedings.

2. In the last 40 years, a new
creed of litigants has cropped up. Those
who belong to this creed do not have any
respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to
falsehood
and
unethical
means
for
achieving their goals. In order to meet the
challenge posed by this new creed of
litigants, the courts have, from time to time,
evolved new rules and it is now well
established that a litigant, who attempts to
pollute the stream of justice or who touches
the pure fountain of justice with tainted
hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim
or final."

 (emphasis supplied)

17. In Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem
Prakash @ Pappu and another (2013) 9
SCC 199, Hon'ble the Supreme Court,
considering
the
issue
regarding
concealment of facts before the Court,
while observing that "court is not a
laboratory where children come to play",
opined as under:

"19. The second limb of the
submission is whether in the obtaining
factual matrix, the order passed by the High
Court discharging the accused-respondent
is justified in law. We have clearly stated
that though the respondent was fully aware
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
about the fact that charges had been framed
against him by the learned trial Judge, yet
he did not bring the same to the notice of
the revisional court hearing the revision
against the order taking cognizance. It is a
clear case of suppression. It was within the
special knowledge of the accused. Any one
who
takes
recourse
to
method
of
suppression in a court of law, is, in
actuality, playing fraud with the court, and
the maxim supressio veri, expression faisi ,
i.e., suppression of the truth is equivalent to
the expression of falsehood, gets attracted.
We are compelled to say so as there has
been a calculated concealment of the fact
before the revisional court. It can be stated
with certitude that the accused- respondent
tried to gain advantage by such factual
suppression. The fraudulent intention is
writ large. In fact, he has shown his
courage of ignorance and tried to play
possum.

20. The High Court, as we have
seen,
applied
the
principle
"when
infrastructure collapses, the superstructure
is bound to collapse". However, as the
order has been obtained by practising fraud
and suppressing material fact before a court
of law to gain advantage, the said order
cannot be allowed to stand."

 (emphasis supplied)

18. Similar view has been expressed
in Amar Singh v. Union of India and
others, (2011) 7 SCC 69 and Kishore
Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, (2013) 2 SCC 398.

19. In a recent judgment in ABCD
Vs. Union of India and others (2020) 2
SCC 52, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
matter where material facts had been
concealed, while issuing notice to the
petitioner therein, exercising its suo-motu
contempt power, observed as under :

"15. Making a false statement on
oath is an offence punishable under Section
181 of the IPC while furnishing false
information with intent to cause public
servant to use his lawful power to the
injury of another person is punishable
under Section 182 of the IPC. These
offences by virtue of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of
the Code can be taken cognizance of by
any court only upon a proper complaint in
writing as stated in said Section. In respect
of
matters
coming
under
Section
195(1)(b)(i) of the Code, in Pushpadevi
M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan etc., (1987) 3
SCC 367 prosecution was directed to be
launched after prima facie satisfaction was
recorded by this Court.

16. It has also been laid down by
this Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil
Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 that a
person who makes an attempt to deceive
the court, interferes with the administration
of justice and can be held guilty of
contempt of court. In that case a husband
who had filed a fabricated document to
oppose the prayer of his wife seeking
transfer of matrimonial proceedings was
found guilty of contempt of court and
sentenced to two weeks imprisonment. It
was observed as under:

"1. The stream of administration
of justice has to remain unpolluted so that
purity of court's atmosphere may give
vitality to all the organs of the State.
Polluters
of
judicial
firmament
are,
therefore, required to be well taken care of
to maintain the sublimity of court's
environment; so also to enable it to
administer justice
fairly and to the
satisfaction of all concerned.

2. Anyone who takes recourse to
fraud, deflects the course of judicial
proceedings; or if anything is done with
oblique motive, the same interferes with the
administration of justice. Such persons are
2 All. Kushwaha Mahasabha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
53
required to be properly dealt with, not only
to punish them for the wrong done, but also
to deter others from indulging in similar
acts which shake the faith of people in the
system of administration of justice.
* * *

14. The legal position thus is that
if the publication be with intent to deceive
the court or one made with an intention to
defraud, the same would be contempt, as it
would interfere with administration of
justice. It would, in any case, tend to
interfere with the same. This would
definitely be so if a fabricated document is
filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the
case at hand the fabricated document was
apparently to deceive the court; the
intention to defraud is writ large. Anil
Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt."

17. In K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel
Authority of India Limited and others
(2008) 12 SCC 481 it was observed:

"39. If the primary object as
highlighted in Kensington Income Tax
Commrs., (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB
257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) is kept in mind, an
applicant who does not come with candid
facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ
of
the
court
with
"soiled
hands".
Suppression or concealment of material
facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery,
manipulation,
manoeuvring
or
misrepresentation, which has no place in
equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If
the applicant does not disclose all the
material facts fairly and truly but states
them in a distorted manner and misleads
the court, the court has inherent power in
order to protect itself and to prevent an
abuse of its process to discharge the rule
nisi and refuse to proceed further with the
examination of the case on merits. If the
court does not reject the petition on that
ground, the court would be failing in its
duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to
be dealt with for contempt of court for
abusing the process of the court."

18. In Dhananjay Sharma Vs.
State of Haryana and others (1995) 3
SCC 757 filing of a false affidavit was the
basis for initiation of action in contempt
jurisdiction and the concerned persons were
punished."

20. It was held in the judgments
referred to above that one of the two
cherished basic values by Indian society for
centuries is "satya" (truth) and the same has
been put under the carpet by the petitioner.
Truth constituted an integral part of the
justice-delivery
system
in
the
pre-
Independence
era,
however,
postIndependence period has seen drastic changes
in our value system. The materialism has
overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for
personal gain has become so intense that
those involved in litigation do not hesitate to
take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation
and suppression of facts in the court
proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values
have gone down and now a litigants can go to
any extent to mislead the court. They have no
respect for the truth. The principle has been
evolved to meet the challenge posed by this
new breed of litigants. Now it is well settled
that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the
stream of justice or who touches the pure
fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not
entitled to any relief, interim or final.
Suppression of material facts from the court
of law, is actually playing fraud with the
court. The maxim supressio veri, expression
faisi, i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent
to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted.

21. In the case in hand, the petitioner
No. 2, who is a Government employee has
not disclosed that he is serving as Assistant
54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Teacher with the Basic Education Board
and further about various criminal cases
pending between the parties, hence, a
petition sought to be filed in public interest
by him cannot be entertained. In our
opinion, present petition deserves to be
dismissed with special cost.

22. The present writ petition is,
accordingly, dismissed with cost of ₹
1,00,000/- which shall be deposited by
petitioner No. 2 with the District Legal
Services Authority, Bareilly within one
month from today. On failure, the Basic
Education Officer, Bareilly shall be entitled
to recover the amount from the salary of
petitioner No. 2 in five installments of ₹
20,000/-, as his salary is stated to be about
₹ 70,000/- per month.

23. Before we part with the order, we
are
constrained
to
note
that
the
instructions received by the State Counsel
are not complete and comprehensive. The
credentials of the petitioner No. 2 have not
been mentioned, though it is part of the
record as number of criminal cases have
been registered against petitioner No. 2
and he is in litigation with the private
respondents. The fact that he is a working
Assistant
Teacher
with
the
Basic
Education Board has also not been
mentioned. The Basic Education Board
may take appropriate action against
petitioner No. 2 for misconduct and
violation of service Rules as he is also
claiming himself to be the President of
petitioner No. 1.

24. Let copy of the order passed today
be communicated to the Secretary, Basic
Education Board, U.P., Lucknow and the
Basic Education Officer, Bareilly by the
Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 54
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Second Appeal No. 313 of 1997

Ram Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Amar Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mr. Vijay Kumar Rai, Sri K.D. Tiwari, Sri
K.D. Tripathi, Sri Shadab Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.K. Tiwari, Sri S.K. Pandey, Sri A. Singh
Jadaon, Sri Anil Kumar Yadav, Sri Anil
Singh, Dr. G.S.D. Mishra, Sri J.S. Tomar, Sri
Kripa Shanker Yadav, Sri Pradeep Saxena,
Sri R.S. Tomar

A. Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908Section
100-Permanent
prohibitory
injunction-Substantial question of lawLower Appellate Court dismissed the suit
on the ground of absence of cause of
action-Appellate court dismissed it for the
plaintiff's failure to prove his case by
evidence regarding the threat to his
peaceful possession- Indeed, a cause of
action disclosed by the plaintiff in his
pleadings in ample measure that he is able
to prove his title and possession but the
suit being one for injunction to protect the
plaintiff's possession from a threatened
act of defendants-the dismissal of his suit
would in no way debar the plaintiff from
bringing in an action to protect his
possession, should there be ever in future
a threat to his peaceful possession of the
suit
property
at
the
hands
of
the
defendants
or
anyone
else
claiming
through or under them-The cause of
action in the suit is a very limited one and
it is only that which the plaintiff has not
been able to prove, to wit, a threatened