Banerji and Aikman, JJ.:— This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who are appellants here, in regard to a small plot of land in the village of Bhikampur, in the Meerut district. The plot in question was allotted to the plaintiffs in a partition which took place in 1882. It appears that after the partition the defendants began passing over the land. The plaintiffs, or their predecessor in title, instituted a suit in 1884 for a declaration of their title to this very plot, and for an order restraining the defendants from using the land. That suit was decreed. The plaintiffs now come into Court, alleging that, notwithstanding the proceedings in the former suit, the defendants still interfere with their possession. They alleged that they were prevented by the defendants from constructing a house which they wished to build on the plot. They further alleged that a that on, which they had put up on the land in dispute, had been demolished by the defendants. They prayed, first, that the house which they wished to build should be constructed on the plot at the plaintiffs' expense “through the Court Amin,” and that the obstruction offered by the defendants should be removed. Next, they asked for a declaration of their right to the plot, and for the issue of a perpetual injunction forbidding the defendants to pass over the plot, and prohibiting their interference with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of it. In the alternative, the plaintiffs prayed that if the Court considered the plaintiffs to be out of possession, a, decree for possession might be given.
The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed by the Munsif. On appeal the learned Additional Sub-ordinate Judge gave the plaintiffs a decree for possession, but refused the prayer for a perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs come here in second appeal, and the defendants have filed an objection under section 561 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The appeal of the plaintiffs relates merely to that part of the decree which refused their claim for a perpetual injunction. It was held by the Courts below that the plaintiffs, having already obtained a perpetual injunction in the previous suit, were not entitled, with reference to the provisions of section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to maintain a second suit for the same relief. As to this we think that the Courts below were right. The plaintiffs, having already obtained a decree for a perpetual injunction, cannot get another decree to the same effect against the same defendants. The learned vakil for the appellants contended that notwithstanding the previous decree in their favour, they were entitled to maintain a suit for another injunction. He argued that as upwards of three years had elapsed since the date of the first decree, it could no longer be enforced in execution and had became inoperative. In our judgment this plea is without force. When a Court issues an order to a party in a suit for abstention from any particular act, and when the person to whom the order has been issued disobeys that order, he is guilty of contempt of Court, and the Court can, in our opinion, take proceedings to enforce its authority, not with stand in any thing contained, in art. 79 of sch. ii of the Indian Limitation Act No. XV of 1877. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.
With regard to the objection, it is urged that, having regard to the finding of the lower appellate Court, it was not justified in passing a decree for possession. The judgment of the learned Additional Sub-ordinate Judge is, we must say, a most peculiar one, and it is difficult to understand what exactly were the conclusions at which he arrived. It is clear, however, that the Judge finds that the plot in question is the plaintiffs', and that the defendants are interfering with their possession by insisting upon a right to pass over it. No adverse title was set up by the defendants, and upon he previous decision the right of passage claimed now could not be established. Under the circumstances we think that the Court was justified in making the decree in the plaintiff's favour for possession. We therefore dismiss the objection with costs.
Appeal dismissed.