B. N. Sapru, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff was that he was the owner of the plots in suit having an area of 2.43 acres situate in village Pakaria Naugawan, Pargana, Tehsil and District Pilibhit. It was asserted by the plaintiff that the defendant wanted to take possession of the plots in dispute and, therefore, the plaintiff instituted writ petition No. 2399 of 1964 and therein the proceedings for possession were stayed. It was then asserted that on 22-4-1969 a registered compromise was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. Under this agreement, the defendant acknowledged the ownership of the plaintiff over the land in dispute and since the land had been entered in the revenue record in the name of the defendant, a registered sale deed dated 21-4-1969 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. THEn it was averred that the plaintiff was in possession without obstruction by the defendant but recently, sometimes in 1975, the defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiff's possession. In the circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the land in suit. The defendant in his written statement admitted that the plaintiff had filed a writ petition in the High Court. It was asserted that the defendant was in possession of the land since 1964 when its name was mutated over the same. It was asserted that the suit was barred by Sees. 70 and 111 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act as also by Sec. 117 of the said Act and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Then it was asserted that if there was any agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the agreement entered into would be void and illegal and the office bearers of the society had no right to transfer the ownership and possession of the plots in suit to the plaintiff. It was then asserted that the alleged agreement and transfer deed, if any, was never acted upon and the plaintiff never entered into possession of the plots in suit in pursuance of the alleged agreement of transfer. It was then stated that the suit was barred by Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act. The trial court framed the following issues; 1.Whether the plaintiff is owner and is in possession of the plots- in- dispute as alleged in the plaint ? 2.Whether the suit is barred by Sees. 70, 111 and 117 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act ? 3.Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as alleged in W.S. Para 4? 4.Whether there was any agreement between the plaintiff and defendant's society as alleged in the plaint para 3 ? If so, is the said agreement void and illegal as alleged in W. S. para 6 ? 5.To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ? 6.Whether the said deed executed by the defendant co-operative society in favour of the plaintiff on 21-4-1969 is void and illegal as alleged in W. S. paras 6 and 7 ? If so, its effect 7. Whether the suit is barred by Sees. 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act?
(3.) THE trial court found under issue no. 3 that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Then it took up issues no. 1, 2 and 4 together. It found that the admitted case of the parties was that the land in dispute originally belonged to &the plaintiff and land acquisition proceedings had been taken in respect thereof. It further found that the plaintiff had filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the acquisition proceedings. It found that there was a compromise between the parties whereby the office bearers entered into an agreement with the plaintiff which was registered and which was followed by a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The sab deed has been found to have been executed by the president and the secretary of the defendant Society of which the plaintiff was found to be a member. The agreement and the transfer deed were also found to be legal and valid . It further found that the plaintiff was in possession over the land in suit. The trial court also found that the suit was not barred by Sees. 70, 111 and 117 of the U. P. Co-operative Societes Act.;