R. B. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) The present second appeal has been instituted by appellant Vishnu and legal representatives of appellant Madhav. After the death of Madhav his legal representatives have been impleaded in this appeal. The original suit had been instituted by Madhav and Vishnu in Munsif Court, Azamgarh. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for mandatory injunction and possession and aggrieved by the said judgment the plaintiffs appellants preferred appeal before Civil Judge, Azamgarh. The second Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh dismissed the plaintiff's appeal by its judgment dated 21-2-1986. Aggrieved by both the Judgments, plaintiffs appellants instituted the present second appeal.
(2.) The essential facts for adjudication of appeal are as under: According to the plaint, the plaintiff, Madhav and Vishnu are members of the same family, father of defendants Shiopal had two other brothers Janaki and Jaishri who were separate from each other. Sons of Janki constructed house at different place and the defendants entered into possession of their house which was near the house of defendants, and in the family of Jaishri the lone memberSmt. Bechani widow of Kumar has also been residing with the defendants after she became widow. In this way the houses and Sahan which at the time of partition belonged to Shiopal and Jaishri are in possession of defendants. In the map annexed with the plaint has been shown the situation of the house etc. of the defendants. In respect of the land in suit the case of the plaintiffs was that the disputed land was the sahan area of the plaintiffs and according to section 9 of Zamindari Abolition Act the land being sahan area has vested in the plaintiffs who have right and title over the land in dispute. It was also alleged that defendants are unauthorised attempting to interfere with the possession of plaintiffs over the land in suit and in unauthorised manner the defendants have entered into possession over the land .n dispute, in that connection relief was prayed for in the plaint the defendants be dispossessed from the disputed land and by a mandatory injunction the defendants be ordered to remove unauthorised possession and construction and by permanent injunction the defendants be prohibited from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the disputed land.
(3.) The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and alleged that the land in suit is appurtenant to their house as sahan land, the door of the defendant opens over the said land and the disputed land has vested in the defendants under section 9 of Zamindari I Abolition Act and the plaintiffs have no right over the said land.;