- (1.) The original suit no. 256/ 1962, Bhaggal Kunwar & Anr. v. Mahadev Kunwar & others, was filed for the relief of recovery of possession. This suit was decreed by the judgment dated 26.8.1964 passed by 1st Additional Munshif, Jaunpur. Against this judgment the Civil Appeal no. 271/1964, Mahadev v. Bhaggal was preferred which was partly allowed by the judgment dated 27.2.1981 of 3rd Aditional District Judge, Jaunpur. The appellate court had decreed the suit for possession over land and construction situated in map of Amin report dated 20.9.1962 (paper no. 942) marked by letters A, B, C, D, E, F by red inks. The appeal in respect of remaining construction and land was dismissed and Amin report was formed part of the decree. Against the judgment dated 27.2.1981, defendants of original suit had preferred present second appeal.
(2.) It has been admitted fact between the parties that Sukkhu had three sons namely, Thakur Deen, Mahavir and Mahadev (defendant no. 1). Thakur Deen had died issueless. Plaintiff no.-1 Bhaggal and plaintiff no.-2 Roop Narain are the sons of Mahavir. Defendants no. 2, 3 and 4 are sons of Mahadev (defendant no.-1). It is also admitted fact that by lease deed dated 6.8.1925, Mahavir had acquired some property from Mahtura Prasad. Thereafter original suit no. 620/1925 was filed and decided in the Court of Munsif City, Jaunpur. Said suit was decided in favour of plaintiffs' father Mahavir. The dispute between the parties was as to whether the property acquired by Mahavir from Mathura Prasad by lease-deed dated 6.8.1925 is joint family property or was property of exclusive ownership of Mahavir. Partition between the parties had also been the admitted fact, but in that regard the time of partition was not admitted between the parties. The existence of disputed construction over land acquired from Mathura Prasad is also admitted fact but this is disputed as to whether this construction was present at the time of lease-deed executed by Mathura Prasad or it was raised later on.
(3.) Plaintiffs of the original suit claimed that disputed property detailed in the plaint was obtained by their father Mahavir Prasad through its original owner Mathura Prasad, which related to plot no.-55. For this property litigation between Mathura Prasad and Mahavir Prasad had ended in favour of Mahavir Prasad, who had been declared sole owner of this property. This property was not joint Hindu family property (JHF) but the property of exclusive ownership of Mahavir and after his death it devolved to plaintiffs. Defendants have taken possession of some portion of this property as detailed in plaint. Therefore the plaintiffs have filed suit for recovery of possession.;