Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent who has appeared through caveat at the admission stage.
(2.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of O.S. No.113 of 2008, which was dismissed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Orai, District Jalaun on 25.10.2010. Against the said decree plaintiff appellant filed Civil Appeal No.103 of 2010, which was dismissed by A.D.J., Court No.3, Jalaun at Orai on 11.01.2012, hence this second appeal. Defendant respondent is Manager of a Mazar. The relief claimed in the suit was that in the land lying towards east of the plaintiff's house and towards west of the Mazar, the defendant Manager of the Mazar should be restrained from opening a door. Admittedly main door leading to the Mazar is situate towards south. In the plaint map the disputed portion was shown as private rasta of the plaintiff.
(3.) BOTH the courts below held that the plaintiff failed to show his title or possession over the land in which defendant wanted to open a door of the Mazar. The plaintiff in his statement categorically stated that regarding ownership of the disputed land he had no proof. Plaintiff in his plaint stated that towards west of the land in dispute his house meant for tying cattles (makan maweshian) was situate. The courts below held that plaintiff completely failed to prove that the land in dispute settled with him under Section 9 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Courts below also denied the said benefit (of Section 9) to the plaintiff on the ground that he had not stated that his house of animals was in existence on 01.07.1952 when the Act came into force. The concept of land appurtenant used in Section 9 of the Act is that it must be essential for beneficial enjoyment of the house. For a house where animals are tied no such requirement is there.;