S.N.Srivastava, J. - (1.) Present second appeal has its genesis in the judgment and decree dated 10.9.1980 whereby Civil Appeal No. 156 of 1973 was allowed and suit being O.S. No. 267 of 1969 filed for demolition of construction of defendant over the land in dispute was decreed attended with further direction to the defendant to remove the constructions within 30 days and deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff appellant.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant defendant is present but there is no appearance for the respondent-plaintiff.
(3.) The facts draped in brevity are that according to plaint allegations originally the land in suit was part of house owned by one Sahdeo. Sahdeo alienated the house in question including the land in question in favour of plaintiff by means of sale deed dated 4.6.1969 and it is claimed that that plaintiff has been in possession over the land in suit. The further allegations are that the defendants who had a covetous eye over the part of land, and had purchased abutting land, encroached upon it by constructing a Haudi (water tank) and embedded a peg and also raised some construction. It is in this backdrop that present suit was instituted by the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendants in their written statement repudiated the plaint allegations stating that the land in question formed part of his property and Sahdeo, transferee of the land had nothing to do with the land in suit and that the defendants have been in possession over the land on which Haudi etc. were situated prior to the date of vesting from the time of their ancestors. It is further claimed in the written statement that earlier there was a wall separating the two property which fell during rainy season and it was this wall which the defendants were raising but plaintiff instituted suit without any valid cause and got the construction stopped. It is further averred that the plaintiff misstated the boundaries of property in suit with oblique motive. It was further averred that the land in suit was neither vested in Gaon Sabha nor Gaon Sabha ever allocated the said land to Sahdeo. In replication to the allegations in written statement, the plaintiff alleged that Sahdeo had got the land in suit from Gaon Sabha, which he purchased from him by means of sale deed. In the alternative, it was pleaded that if right of the plaintiff under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is not established, the right of Sahdeo on the basis of settlement of land from Gaon Sabha is proved.;