H.N. Tilhari, J. - (1.) This is defendants' second appeal, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 4-9-78 passed by Shri B.P. Srivastava, III Additional District Judge Pratapgarh, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1977 Rama Kant Tripathi and others v. Satya Narain and others arising out of judgment and decree dated 23-12-7(Sic) passed by Shri Ram Jiwan Gupta, IV Addl. Munsif, Pratapgarh, in Regular Suit No. 203 of 1970 Satya Narain and others v. Rama Kant Tripathi and others , whereby the appellate court had dismissed the defendants' first appeal and has affirmed the trial court's decree in the above mentioned suit whereby the plaintiffs' claim for demolition, possession and injunction had been decreed whereas the plaintiffs' claim for damages had been dismissed. The plaintiff-respondents' claim in the above noted suit has been to the effect that one Shri Ram Nihore ; father of the plaintiff-respondents 1 to 3 had filed the suit for the reliefs for possession and injunction as well as for demolition of the construction raised by the defendants illegally over plot of land bearing No. 60/1 situate in village Sahaspur, Pargana and Tehsil Patti, district Pratapgarh. Plaintiffs claim that the land in dispute has been the Abadi Sahan land of the plaintiffs since the time of their ancestors and the plaintiffs also acquired title thereto after abolition of zamindari. The plaintiff-respondents alleged that after the zamindari had been abolished the land had been settled with plaintiff-respondents and defendant-appellants have nothing to do therewith but on the strength of their force and might but without right and title the defendant-appellants dug the foundation on the three sides of the Marha of the plaintiff-respondents on 18-5-1970 and when they were asked not to do that they were bent upon to take the law in their own hands and to do Marpit. The plaintiff-respondents alleged that the defendant-appellants removed the cattle pegs and Hauda etc. which belonged to the plaintiff-respondents and on the said portion the defendant-appellants after demolishing Mend etc. raised certain constructions shown by letters Aa Ba Sa Da and also set up the cattle pegs on the western side of Ya Ra. They also placed Laktha and Majnaur and thereby dispossessed the plaintiff-respondents from the portion of the land shown by letters Da Ya Ra Pa Sa Da as well. The suit of the plaintiff-respondents was contested by the defendant-appellants denying the plaintiffs' title over the land as well as taking the plea to the effect that the land in suit is not identifiable on the spot. The defendants took specific plea in the written statement to the effect that the land in suit was the part of Ahata no. 7 at Abadi plot no. 213 of the First Settlement over which pucca well belonging to Sheo Datt used to exist. According to defendants' case the defendants have always been in possession, user and occupation of the land in dispute, which according to defendants' case was part and parcel of Ahata no. 7 at Abadi plot no. 213. The defendants claimed that on the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 51 i.e. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the land in dispute stood settled with defendants as their land appurtenant and plaintiffs had no right to the same. The defendants denied the entire claim of the plaintiffs. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the land in dispute is the Abadi land of the plaintiffs or it is Abadi land or land appurtenant of the defendants? (2) Whether the suit is within time ? (3) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?
(2.) The trial court after consideration of the evidence recorded the following findings. "That the land in dispute is the Abadi land of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs' possession over the land in dispute has been upto the date the cause of action alleged to have accrues and so the suit is in time."
(3.) After having recorded these findings the trial court decreed the plaintiffs' claim for possession over the land Aa Ba Sa Da and Da Ya Ra Pa Sa Da as shown or indicated in the site-plan in the Commissioner's map. It may be clarified that the map is only site-plan drawn by the Commissioner. The trial court further directed the defendants to remove their constructions or constructions, which have been raised by the defendants, within the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of decree and to hand over vacant possession of the land to plaintiffs.;