- (1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a portion of plot No. 335. The plaintiff-respondent's case was that the portion in dispute had been given to him in exchange by the Revenue Court under Section 53, U. P. Tenancy Act, and that later on the defendant dishonestly had made constructions, over the same and dispossessed the plaintiff. The defence was that the order of the Revenue Court was without jurisdiction, as the land was not land as defined in the U. P. Tenancy Act and further that the constructions were more than twelve years old. The trial court decreed the suit in its entirety. There was an appeal and the case was remanded to the trial Court, which decreed the suit again with the exception of land covered by the 'ghari' (cattle-shed) and the well. Both sides appealed to the lower Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals but made one amendment in the decree of the trial Court. It ordered that "the 'ghari' referred to in the decree (of the Munsif) will be taken to be the 'ghari' with the exception of the portion marked 'efgh'. "
(2.) IN this second appeal by the defendant two points have been urged before me. It has been urged that the learned Judge was in error in excepting the portion marked "efgh" from the site covered by the 'ghari'. It is pointed out that the 'ghari' and the portion 'efgh' are one and the same and that if you except 'efgh' the whole 'ghari' is excepted. I have looked into the commissioner's map and his report and I find that EFGH is indeed the whole of the 'ghari'. The commissioner had reported that the northern verandah of this 'ghari' EFGH was two or three years old and the rest of the 'ghari' was over twelve years old. The lower Appellate Court intended to exempt from the area of the 'ghari' the portion covered by the northern verandah and not the entire area EFGH.
(3.) THE other point urged before me is of some importance. It is urged that under Section 9 of the uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950, (Act 1 of 1951 ). the land in dispute must remain with the defendant as it will be deemed to have been settled with him by the state Government. Section 9 runs as follows: "section 9: Private wells, trees in abadi and buildings to be settled with the existing owners or occupiers thereof: All private wells in holdings, grove or 'abadi', trees in 'abadi' and all buildings situate within the limit's of an estate, belonging to or held by an intermediary or tenant or other person, whether residing in the village or not, shall continue to belong to or be held by such intermediary, tenant or person, as the case may be, and the site of the wells or the buildings with the area appurtenant thereto shall be deemed to be settled with by the State Government on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. ";