JASPREET SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Q.M. Haque, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Madhav Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) These two above second appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 02.03.1978 whereby the first appeal filed by Sunder Lal was allowed and the first appeal filed by Chaitu was dismissed as a consequence, the suit of Chaitu also stood dismissed. It is against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 02.03.1978 that two second appeals came to be filed by Chaitu. One appeal filed by Chaitu is directed against that judgment whereby his first appeal before the lower appellate Court was dismissed which has given rise to Second Appeal No.367/1978 while the other second appeal is against the judgment of the lower appellate Court whereby the first appeal of Sunder Lal was allowed and as a consequence the suit of Chaitu was dismissed which has given rise to Second Appeal No.368/1978.
(3.) It is in this regard that both the Second Appeals No.367/1978 and 368/1978 were connected and have been heard together. The Second Appeal No.367/1978 was admitted by this Court by means of the order dated 19.04.1978 and as an interim measure it was provided that if the appellants i.e. referring to Chaitu, is in possession on the date of the order, the defendant shall be restrained from interfering with their possession until further orders. Similarly, the Appeal No.368/1978 was also admitted by means of the order dated 19.04.1978. However at the time of the admission of the second appeals, no formal substantial question of law was framed by this Court. Nevertheless, this court, before proceeding to hear the aforesaid second appeals on merits, with the consent of the parties, proposed to frame the following substantial questions of law which are being reproduced hereinafter and it is on the aforesaid substantial questions of law that the above appeals have been heard and are being decided. 1. Whether the land in suit vested with the plaintiffs in terms of Section 9 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act being the land appurtenant to the house which has been shown by the letters A, B, C, D. 2. Whether for claiming the land in suit which was appurtenant to the house A, B, C, D, it was necessary for the plaintiff to have claimed a relief for declaration and possession of the said house in question and in absence thereof whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit. 3. Whether the relief regarding demolition of the wall constructed by the defendant blocking passage was dependent on the title of the plaintiff in respect of the house A, B, C, D. Since, the aforesaid questions upon being answered will substantially resolve the controversy in between the parties accordingly, the court has heard the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid questions and now proceeds to decide the appeals. ;