R.N. Ray, J. - (1.) THE defendant -appellant has preferred this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.1.1976 passed by Sri S.N. Mishra, Additional District Judge, Basti arising out of O.S. No. 266 of 1966. Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the land marked with letters ABEF, which is a portion of plot No. 150 and also restraining him to amalgamate the said portion of land in his plot No. 149. In the alternative, the plaintiff has also sought the relief of possession over that land.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY the Chak No. 150 belongs to the plaintiff and Chak No. 149 belongs to the defendant and their aforesaid plots were duly demarcated during the consolidation proceedings. The plaintiff has sown crops in his chak No. 150. The defendant with illegal motive, started demarcation proceedings of plot No. 149 which is still pending However, in the demarcation proceedings, initiated by the defendant, the Amin wrongly reported for fixing the land ABEF, which is a portion of Plot No. 150, in Plot No. 149 of the defendant and the defendant wrongly got the stones affixed at points B and E and it was done some time in the month of August when the crops were standing. It is a case of the plaintiff that the land ABEF were never in the portion of Plot No. 149, the same happens to be a portion of Plot No. 150 which absolutely belongs to the plaintiff. The defendant contested the suit, filed written statement and has stated that he had been in possession of plot No. 149 and according to him the plaintiff was encroaching upon his plot No. 149, so he filed Case No. 205 against the defendant (who is plaintiff in this case) and the demarcation was confirmed on 15.1.1966 by the S.D.O. and the stones were affixed. After the demarcation, the plaintiff had to leave the encroached portion of Plot No. 149 and concealing all these facts, the plaintiff has filed the suit. He has raised objection that the instant suit was barred in view of provisions of Sections 49, 27 and 11 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the defendant denied that the plaintiff had sown crops in the disputed land and the defendant asserted that the suit was not maintainable.
(3.) BOTH the trial court and the first appellate court held that the plot No. 150 belongs to the plaintiff and the disputed plot was a portion of plot No. 150 and they were pleased to hold that the suit was maintainable. It is not barred under Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the suit was decreed by the learned trial court and the appeal preferred by the defendant was also dismissed.;