- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents who has appeared through caveat at the admission stage. This is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of O.S. No. 169 of 1998. which was decreed on 18.8.2006 by Additional Civil Judge. Junior Division. Court No. 4. Bulandshahr and defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over part of plot No. 510. area 0.120 hectare and part of plot No. 511. area 0.120 hectare. (Both the plots have got much larger areas.) Against the said decree defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2006, which was allowed by A.D.J. Court No. 3, Bulandshahr through judgment and decree dated 25.1.2012. judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside and suit was dismissed, hence this second appeal.
(2.) Defendants respondents had not questioned the right, title or possession of the plaintiff over the area of 0.240 hectares of plots No. 510 and 511. However, defendants had contended that the land in dispute did not fall in that portion of the said plots which belonged to the plaintiff. Land in dispute was shown in the plaint map by letters Aa, Ba. Ca. Da, La, Va, Ra, Ya and it was also specified as such in the operative portion of the Judgment/decree of the trial court.
(3.) The defendants claimed that father of defendant No. 1 was allotted patta for residential purposes of an area 0.266 hectares of plot No. 511 and over the said portion defendants had constructed the house and land in dispute was included in the said portion. According to the defendants' case land in dispute also included the defendants' chabootara. Lower appellate court also held that chabootaras of the defendants was in existence since before filing of the suit.;