S.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow upholding the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2001 passed by the Vth Additional Civil Judge (SD), Lucknow.
(2.) The Suit was initially filed with the allegations that Mohd. Ali @ Chabban Saheb was the landlord of a land situated at Deendayal Road, Asharfabad. Mohd. Ali transferred the land in dispute in favour of Plaintiff No. 2 by means of sale deed dated 18.8.1967. On 6.10.1956 the disputed compound was given on rent of Rs. 20/ - by Mohd. Ali, Plaintiff No. 1 to Defendant No. 1 and an agreement was executed to that effect in favour of Plaintiff No. 1 The Defendant No. 1, Habib Ahmad used to pay rent to Mohd. Ali, but he stopped to pay the rent from 6.8.1967 and in spite of the objection of Mohd. Ali, Plaintiff No. 1, the Defendant No. 1 raised certain construction on the land in question. The title of Plaintiff No. 1 was also denied by the Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 also sublet and allowed Munni Devi to live in the said premises without the permission of the land lord. During the pendency of the Suit, Defendant No. 2 died and her heirs were substituted. Plaintiff No. 1 and his father sent a notice through registered post under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 2.9.1968 to Defendant No. 1, deceased Habib Ahmad, and granted him 30 days time to vacate the land in question along with the constructions and pay the outstanding rent. The said notice was also affixed on the door of the compound and this was done on account of the fact that Defendant No. 1, Habib Ahmad refused to receive the notice. Since the title of Plaintiff No. 1 was denied, therefore, in the alternative the relief for possession was also claimed in the Suit. After the death of Defendant No. 2, her heir Defendant No. 2/1 filed additional written statement stating therein that during her life time Defendant No. 2 executed a Will deed on 1.10.1988 in favour of Defendant No. 2/1. Defendant No. 2 expired on 29.10.1988 and after his death Defendant No. 2/1 has become the owner of the entire property. It was further stated that the disputed land does not belong to the Plaintiffs and neither they have got any right over the same. It was also stated in the additional written statement that the land belongs to Takia and, therefore, it cannot be termed to be a personal of anybody. In such circumstances, the land does not belong to the Plaintiff No. 1 nor Plaintiff No. 2. The house constructed on the said land is in the name of Munni Devi and is recorded in the records of the Nagar Mahapalika and the Lucknow Jal Sansthan and Munni Devi has always been paying the House Tax and the Water Tax. She has also obtained electricity connection in her name. After framing of the issues, the parties were allowed to adduce evidence and after conclusion of the evidence, the trial court proceeded to decree the Suit for ejectment along with the damages @ Rs. 20/ - per month from the date of filing of the Suit and in respect of the rest of the claim, the Suit was rejected. The Defendants feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid decree, preferred an appeal and in the appeal they filed certain documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before the trial court an application was moved for framing of additional issue, but the said application was rejected by the Munsif. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, a revision was preferred before the District Judge, which too was rejected. After rejection of the revision, the Defendants filed Writ Petition No. 1548 (MS) of 2001 before this Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.5.2001. Therefore, the issue was settled finally in this regard. The Waqf Board was also not impleaded as a party in the Suit.
(3.) Thereafter, the Suit proceeded and was decreed. Against the said judgment and decree an appeal was filed and during the pendency of the appeal another attempt was made by the Appellant to file the copy of the registration certificate issued by the Sunni Central Board of Waqf before the appellate court. Copy of the Khasra and the map was filed in the year 1999 before the trial court although the same was obtained in the year 1997. The said application of the Appellant was rejected on 3.8.2002. Against this order, a revision was preferred before this Court, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 4.12.2002 and the judgment and the order dated 3.8.2002 was set aside and it was ordered that the documents be taken on record. Against this order Plaintiff -Respondent preferred S.L.P. No. 7263 of 2004, which was decided on 5.11.2004. In the said appeal a direction was given to the effect that the appellate court will be untravelled by any observation of the High Court and will decide the maintainability of the said application. Thereafter, the maintainability of the application along with the appeal was decided and it was found that no reasonable and plausible explanation has been given as to why the said document was not filed at the initial stage when the Khasra and the map was filed.;