As per case facts plaintiffs claimed title and peaceful possession over 'B' schedule property which they asserted was part of their ancestral 'A' schedule property and sought a mandatory injunction ... against the defendants for interfering and demolishing a kitchen portion The trial court ruled for plaintiffs but the first appellate court reversed this dismissing the suit Hence plaintiffs appealed to the High Court The question arose whether the lower appellate court was correct in reversing the trial court's judgment regarding title and possession considering plaintiffs' evidence and whether it properly framed the points for determination Finally the High Court found that plaintiffs failed to establish their title through a partition deed relying instead on patta which is not a title document It also noted discrepancies in measurements and the absence of kitchen details in the partition deed The High Court concluded that the first appellate court rightly dismissed the suit without infirmity or perversity even without explicitly listing points for consideration