S.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal by the Plaintiffs arises out of a suit for a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering in their possession over the land in dispute shown in the map given at the foot of the plaint by letters. ABCEDFG.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS assertion in para 4 of the plaint was that the land in dispute fell in plots Nos. 840, 841 and 846. Besides asserting their possession over the land in dispute, Plaintiffs claimed to be the owners thereof. The Defendants denied the plaint allegations and asserted that they were owners in possession of plots Nos. 841 and 846 They further asserted that these plots constituted agricultural holdings which were recorded in revenue records in their names. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed various issues which included an issue as to whether the suit was not cognizable by the civil court and was barred by Section 331 of the UP ZA & LR Act. The trial court upheld the right, title and possession of the Plaintiffs over plot No. 840. However, so far as the plots Nos. 841 and 846 were concerned, the trial court negatived the Plaintiffs ' claim and held that neither they had any right nor title in these plots nor they were in possession" thereof. It further recorded a rending that considering the frame of the suit it appeared that in effect the Plaintiffs also wanted a declaration of their title in respect of plots Nos. 841 and 846 which stood recorded in the names of the Defendants in revenue records. According to the trial court such a relief could not be granted by the civil court in view of the bar of Section 331 of the UP ZA and LR Act. Consequently, the Plaintiffs ' suit was decreed in respect of plot No. 840 only and was dismissed so far as plots Nos. 841 and 846 were concerned. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in respect of the land in dispute situate in plots No. 841 and 846 Plaintiffs filed an appeal Before the lower appellate court, the Plaintiffs tried to assail the findings recorded by the trial court, both on the question of title of plots Nos. 841 and 846 on the question of possession over the aforesaid plots. The lower appellate court, however, on the appreciation of the evidence on record upheld the findings of the trial court.
(3.) FROM a perusal of the judgment passed by the lower appellate court, it appears that in the alternative the Plaintiffs had asserted that they were entitled to a decree of prohibitory injunction even on the strength of their possessory title On the findings arrived at by the lower appellate court on the question of possession, however, the Plaintiffs were not found to be entitled to such a decree and the appeal was, therefore, dismissed.;