Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri U.S. Sahai, learned Counsel for the appellants in present Second Appeal No. 460 of 1979 Tribhuwan Nath (now deceased through his heirs) and Ors. v. Bateshwar Nath (now deceased through his heirs) and Ors.
(2.) BY means of present Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, the judgment and decree dated 10.01.1979 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh in Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1974 and judgment and decree dated 12.10.1974 passed by Additional Munsif, Pratapgarh in Regular Suit No. 196 of 1968 by which the plaintiffs' Suit was dismissed are under challenge. In brief the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs -appellants have filed a Suit for permanent injunction and damages registered as Suit No. 196 of 1968 (Tribhuwan Nath and Ors. v. Bateshwar Nath and Ors.) on the ground that their ancestors were Zamindar of the Village Misirpur, District Pratapgarh alongwith the other Zamindars and the portion of the Suit i.e. Plot No. 216 has always been in their possession and they became owner in view of the provision as provided under Section 9 of U.P. Act No. 1, 1951 and the defendants have no concern whatsoever in respect to the land in dispute. The defendant in their written statement denied all other allegations made by the plaintiff and further alleged that the Suit was not maintainable, that previously plot No. 216 of the 3rd settlement was the joint property of the defendant No. 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs; that in 1924 by partition the father of defendants No. 1 & 2 got three parts of 142/2 i.e. 142/2/2; 142/2/4 and 142/2/6 and the grandfather of plaintiffs got 4 parts of the plot; that the defendants and their father planted trees in their parts and developed it in the shape of grove. The Suit land is the north western part of their said grove 40216; that the entries of this plot in the recorded were not according to spot, hence they got it corrected by moving proper applications; that plaintiffs have no concern within the Suit land or the trees or other things existing on it. Further, the defendants instituted proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding Suit land and during the pendency of these proceedings plaintiffs have forcibly erected a boundary wall; that the revision dismissed on 20.11.1968 by the learned Sessions Judge and the defendants were given possession of the Suit land but in the meantime the plaintiffs filed the present Suit.
(3.) IT was further submitted by the defendant -respondents in their written statement that the Map given given by the plaintiffs is incorrect, Suit is beyond time, is undervalued, the court fee paid is insufficient and that the court has no jurisdiction to try the Suit.;