MAHENDRA DAYAL, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 19.10.1982 passed by the Additional District Judge Vth, Lucknow in Regular Civil Appeal No.416 of 1978, whereby the appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff -appellant was dismissed.
(2.) I have heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri J.P.Mathur learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(3.) THE plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for injunction and declaration against the defendants -respondents claiming himself to be the owner of the Plot Nos.430, 431, 448, 449 and 450 situate in Mohalla Baraf Khana, District Lucknow. According to the plaintiff -appellant Ram Charan had three sons, namely, Chunni Lal, Ori Lal and Nannhey Lal. Since Ori Lal and Nannhey Lal died issuless, therefore the widow of Chunni Lal, namely, Jagrani inherited the entire property and plaintiff -appellant had purchased the aforesaid plots of land from Smt. Jagrani and came into possession thereof. The plaintiff -appellant thereafter started raising construction over these plots, but defendants -respondents created hindrance, and consequently, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate finding himself unable to decide the question of possession referred the dispute to the Civil Court for determination of question of possession. The Civil Court decided the possession in favour of the defendants -respondents. It was only after the finding of the Civil Court in reference to the order of the Magistrate, the plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for declaration of his title and also for injunction. The defendants -respondents contested the suit by filing the written statement and denied the allegations made by the plaintiff -appellant. It was alleged by him that Smt. Jagrani was neither the owner nor was in possession of any of the plots in question. They set up a case that Plot Nos.430, 448 and 449 were owned by Bali Ram, who had purchased them from Jhao Lal. It was also pleaded by the defendants -respondents that the houses standing on the aforesaid plots of land belonged to the predecessors of the defendants -respondents. With regard to Plot Nos.231 and 250, it was said that they were in possession over these plots since the time of their ancestors. It was further alleged that the defendants No.2 and 3 of the original suit sold Plot Nos.430, 448 and 449 to defendant No.5 Panna Lal, who is the son of defendant No.6 Satya Narain.;