Kamleshwar Nath, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the confirmation by the lower appellate court of dismissal of the plaintiff -appellant's Regular Civil Suit No. 27 of 1975 by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh. The dispute relates to an area marked abefghila, in the map dated 22 -3 -1976 (Paper No. C -42 of the trial court) prepared by an Advocate -Commissioner Sri Krishna Pal Singh. The land has two constructed portions R and Q. Inside the portion R a tube well is installed. Portion R lies outside Grove No. 258. Portion Q lies inside Grove No. 258. The portion of the land to the west of these structures, broadly speaking, lies outside towards the west of Plot No. 258, the remaining portion lies within plot No. 258. Plot No. 258 is admittedly the grove of plaintiff -appellant, Ram Saran.
(2.) THE Regular Civil Suit No. 27 of 1975, which has led to this second appeal, was instituted on 6 -2 -1975 with the allegation that initially in the month of February 1973 the defendant -respondent, Doodh Nath, demolished the southern Mend of the grove and again on 2 -2 -1975 the defendant -respondent dug out certain foundations in the disputed land and started making constructions and ultimately completed them during the pendency of the suit. The case of the defendant -respondent was that the land in dispute was the defendant -respondent's Paurhi (also called Paudhar), appurtenant to his well and part of his Sahan land, for all times of which he possessed Abadi rights. It was stated that in any case the plaintiff -appellant had not been in possession of the disputed land within 12 years before filing of the suit.
(3.) THE suit having been dismissed, the lower appellate court held that although the major portion of the land lay within the grove of plaintiff -appellant and all the constructions were new, it was clear from the plaintiff's own evidence that the disputed constructions had been made on the old Paudhar of the well which had been in existence for more than 40 years and, therefore, the plaintiff appellant had not been in possession of the disputed land. It was held that the defendant -respondent had matured his rights by adverse possession to the knowledge of the plaintiff -appellant.;