- (1.) These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2001 passed by Learned VI th Additional District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1998 by which the judgment and decree dated 10.03.1998 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Regular Suit No. 486 of 1994 has been set aside and plaintiff's suit for injunction has been partly decreed and defendant no. 3 has been directed to rectify the sale-deed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Misri Lal Gupta filed suit for injunction on the ground that the defendants have occupied his land shown with letters as D, E, F, G and have raised constructions over it. The plaintiff has prayed for relief for injunction by removal of construction. The plaintiff has alleged that he has purchased six biswa on Plot No. 359 from Mahant Damodar Das and his name has been recorded in the revenue records and, as such, the disputed land lies by the side of Faizabad-Ayodhya Road and is adjacent towards south of Panch Koshi Parikarma way. The land of defendant Nos. 1 & 2 bearing plot no. 360 lies towards east of plot No. 359. There is a building consisting of three rooms owned by Gurukul lying in North-western boundary of plot No. 360, where a board of Gurukul Nihsulk Ausdhalaya is fixed which is shown with letters Ya, Ra, La, Wa in the site plan attached with the plaint. On the north-western boundary of plot No. 359, the plaintiff's shop measuring 40 feet X 30 feet is existing since years. There was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 3, by which the 15 feet X 60 feet land adjacent towards west of land Ya, Ra, La, Wa of plot No. 359 was sold. Thereafter, the plaintiff divided plot No. 359 in a number of plots and, thereafter, a sale-deed was executed by defendant No. 4 to 7, in respect of plot no. 360 towards west of the adjacent land. In October, 1994, the defendant No. 3 encroached by raising construction adjacent to line EF and mixed with line shown with letters GD which was purchased. When the plaintiff raised objections, the defendant no. 3 promises to remove the constructions. But, ultimately, the defendant resiled with his promises with the connivance of defendant No. 1 & 2. Due to this conspiracy between the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 on one hand and defendant No. 3 on the other hand, the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 started digging foundation on land shown with letters as D, E. The plaintiff moved application to the Police Station and the digging of foundation was stopped with the help of the Police. Then, the suit was filed and in spite of ad interim injunction order, the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 with the connivance of other defendants raised wall DE and DG on plot No. 359 and thereby illegally occupied the said portion of the land, hence the suit was filed.
(3.) The defendant Nos. 1 & 2 contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the site plan attached with the plaint is wrong; the disputed land does not lie in plot no.359, it lies in the western portion of plot no.360; the Aushadhalaya consisting of four rooms was sanctioned by the Municipality in plot no.360 in the year 1966; the defendant nos.1 and 2 have earlier got three rooms measuring 14 feet X 8 feet and 12 feet X 12 feet constructed but due to financial constraint construction of 3 feet X 12 feet X 15 feet could not be constructed and, as such they got sale deed of eastern portion of plot no.359 on 15.10.1987 executed in favour of the defendant no.3 and his house was completed in the year 1988 and since then he is in possession as owner; in addition to the sale deed in favour of defendant no.3, defendant no.3 and 4 got a sale deed executed of additional portion on 7.1.1992.;