- (1.) THIS first appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the Appellant against the Respondents for possession of a plot of land in a village abadi, detailed in paragraph 10(a) of the plaint on the allegation that Defendants 1 to 4 had taken wrongful possession of this plot upon which a house belonging to the Appellant's predecessor had stood and had thereafter pulled down that house and constructed a pucca house against the wishes of the Plaintiff who was the owner of the plot of land situated in the abadi of village Jarwal. The suit was dismissed but it is not necessary for us to go into the various finding of the Court below because the appeal must be dismissed on a preliminary objection.
(2.) SINCE the date of the institution of the suit and after the filing of this appeal the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has come into force. By virtue of Section 6 of the said Act "all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries - - (1) in every estate in such area including land...abadi sites, hats, bazars and melas...shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances; Thus according to this provision the right possessed by the Appellant, a former zamindar, in the abadi site of village Jarwal ceased to exist. There is only one exception to this and that is provided by Section 9 of the Act which runs as follows - - All wells, trees in abadi, and all buildings situate within the limits of an estate, belonging to or held by an intermediary or tenant or other person, whether residing in the village or not, shall continue to belong to or be held by such intermediary, tenant or person as the case may be, and the site of the wells or the buildings with the area appurtenant thereto shall be deemed to be settled with him by the State Government on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
(3.) WHATEVER may have been the position with regard to the land to which the suit relates before 1935, there can be no doubt that the Appellant's house had ceased to exist on that date and that the house belonging to the Respondents 1 to 4 had come into existence. This was admitted by the Plaintiff himself. The relief which he claims also is not for possession of any kachcha house or ahata but only for possession of land and the demolition of the building which now stands upon it. He can only obtain possession of the land if he comes within the scope of Section 9 that is to say if this land is appurtenant to a building which belongs to him. On the very face of the allegations contained in the plaint the building at present standing on the land does not belong to him. The site of the building, therefore, cannot vest in him under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The exception to Section 6 does not apply and the Appellant can get no benefit from it.;