Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has come to us on a reference made by Hon'ble Upadhya, Judge.
(2.) THE suit out of which it has arisen was for declaration and for the issue of a permanent injunction. The Plaintiffs claim to be tenants in possession of the land in dispute which they alleged had a brick kiln erected upon it. They said that the brick kiln had previously been erected by Ravi Dutt Defendant No. 2 who had taken the land for erecting a brick kiln from the lamberdar Chunnilal and that Defendant No. 2 had subsequently let out the brick kiln and the land appurtenant to it to the Plaintiffs on a annual, rent of Rs. 40/ - per year. On that basis they claimed to be the tenants of the land in dispute on behalf of Defendant No. 2. They alleged that the Gram Samaj Defendant No. 1 was objecting to their possession without any right and had made a false report alleging that the Plaintiffs had taken unlawful possession of the plots. In pursuance of the said report, according to the Plaintiffs, the Tehsil authorities were going to dispossess them. The Plaintiffs, therefore, claimed a declaration that they were the tenants of the land including the brick kiln on behalf of Sri Ravi Dutt Defendant No. 2. on a annual rent of Rs 40/ -. They also claimed a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1, the Gaon Samaj, for dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the property in dispute as long as they paid rent to Sri Ravi Dutt or his representative in interest. The land in dispute consists of three plots Nos. 278, 279 and 683. It is not clear on which plot the brick kiln is situated. We are informed that it exists on plot No. 278. Defendant No. 2 has practically admitted the claim. The suit was, however, contested by Defendant No. 1 which pleaded that it had nothing to do with plot No. 683 and had been wrongly sued so far as that plot was concerned. The Defendant No. 1 contended that plot No. 278 was Usar land and plot No. 279 was a tank. Both these plots had got vested in the Gram Samaj after the abolition of Zamindari. The Plaintiffs had, however, without any right taken possession of the plots and could not claim any lawful tenancy in respect of the same. They also said that they had made a report in respect of the trespass of the Defendants to the Tehsildar of Akbarpur and Sri S.N. Verma had passed an order of ejectment to the Plaintiffs on 24 -5 -54. They further said that the Gram Samaj had actually taken possession of the plots on 27 -5 -54 under the provisions of the ZA Act. They, therefore, contended that the Plaintiffs could not be granted any of the reliefs claimed.
(3.) IT may be mentioned here that in the plaint the Plaintiff made a mention of the attachment of some bricks also, but they did not claim any relief in that respect. In the written statement of the Defendant No. 1 it was mentioned that the Additional Collector of Kanpur had ordered the plaintiffs to pay Rs 800/ - by way of damages to the Gram Samaj on the ground that the Plaintiffs had committed enforcements on the land and damaged it by digging a brick kiln upon it. Probably, the attachment has been made for the realisation of the amount which was ordered to be paid. We are, however, not concerned with it because no relief was claimed in the present suit in respect of that matter.;