Pankaj Naqvi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Brahma Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for appellant on the admission of appeal. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as they were described before the Trial Court, i.e. as plaintiff/defendant, unless specified otherwise. Ghurhu Yadav and others filed a suit for injunction and demolition alleging that the plaintiff No. I and defendants are members of the same family and are in possession of an Arazi No. 61 more particularly described by letters 'Va' 'Pa' & 'Pha' in the map annexed with plaint. It was stated that on the west -side of Arazi No. 61 is Arazi No. 60. It was stated that out of Arazi No. 60, a patta of 31 karis each was executed in favour of plaintiff No. 1 Ghurhu Yadav and plaintiff No. 2 Virendra, over which they have raised constructions. It was alleged that the area described as 'Aa' 'Ba' 'Sa' 'Da' was the house of plaintiff including a madhai and a "nad" in which members of the family of plaintiffs used to sit and carry out their daily work. It was further alleged that defendants have no concern with area described as A, B, C, D as the property of defendants is situate at a distance of 25 jarib away from aforesaid property. The dispute related to the area described by letters 'Aa' 'Ba' 'La' 'Ra' over which defendant was threatening to take possession. It was in these circumstances plaintiff filed a suit for injunction and demolition that defendants be restrained from raising any construction over the area marked as 'Aa' 'Ba' 'La' 'Ra' and be further restrained from taking forcible possession thereof, and constructions raised by defendants at points 'Y' & 'X' be demolished. The suit was contested on the ground that plaintiffs do not have any concern with property in dispute. It was further stated that property on the northern side of the house of plaintiff, the plaintiff does not have any concern with the suit property as the same belongs to defendants since abolition of Zamindari over which the defendants have installed their marhai, nad etc. for feeding their cattle. The defendants also filed a counter claim that the construction raised at point 'X' be demolished.
(2.) AFTER exchange of pleadings and evidence the Trial Court held that property described by letters 'A', 'B', 'C, 'D' is the same land in respect of which a patta was granted in favour of Virendra son of Ghurhu and as defendants have failed to prove their possession, since abolition of Zamindari and as patta stands proved, the Trial Court on 17.8.2007 decreed the suit of plaintiff, but dismissed the counter claim of defendants. The defendants Rati Ram preferred two appeals before the Court below, First Appeal No. 103 of 2007 was directed against that part of the decree, by which suit of plaintiff was decreed and First Appeal No. 104 of 2007 was preferred against that part of decree by which his counter claim was rejected. Both the appeals were heard together and by judgment and decree dated 8.1.2014 both the appeals have been allowed, suit filed by plaintiff has been dismissed and counter claim decreed. Thus two second appeals, i.e., Second Appeals No. 409 and 410 both of year 2014 have been preferred before this Court. It appears that the case of plaintiff was primarily based on three grounds; firstly it was alleged that he is in possession of land in dispute since abolition of zamindari and by virtue of section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, they had perfected their title, the second was that he staked his possession on the basis of patta and thirdly on the ground that they purchased the land in dispute from the erstwhile Zamindar. However, during the course of arguments before the Court below, plaintiff staked his claim only on the basis of patta, but the finding returned by the Lower Appellate Court was that the original patta was not on record and a copy thereof was filed, which was also not approved by the Collector. The problem for plaintiff did not seem to end here as it further appears that his witness, PW -1 Ghurhu made a statement that it is the defendants, who are in possession of property in dispute. Thus the Appellate Court was of the view that if possession of plaintiff appellant was itself doubtful as he himself admitted possession of defendant -respondent, suit for injunction and demolition had no other fate, but that of dismissal.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for appellant, the Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court are based on relevant and admissible evidence to which no perversity could be demonstrated. No substantial question arises. Both the appeals lack merits and are dismissed at the admission stage with costs.;