- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. The present respondents, Rajbali and others, filed an Original Suit No. 264 of 1980 before the Additional Munsiff, Azamgarh, for a per manent injunction against the first set of defendants. The suit was partly allowed in favour of the plaintiffs by the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1991 passed by the 12th Additional Munsiff, Azamgarh. This judgment and decree gave rise to two ap peals. Civil Appeal No. 253 of 1991 was preferred by the aggrieved plaintiffs for part dismissal of their claim while Civil Appeal No. 411 of 1991 was preferred by the present appellants for the decree that was recorded in favour of the plaintiffs. These two civil appeals were heard together by the Vth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh, who, by his judgment and decree dated 19-11-1994, allowed the civil appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreed the whole suit against the defen dants and at the same time dismissed the appeal lodged by the defendants. Ag grieved, the defendants preferred the present two appeals challenging the find ings of the first appellate court.
(2.) IN the appeals, the lower court record was summoned and a stay order was also granted staying operation of the decrees. The respondents had also ap peared and both sides were heard together at length and the matter is being disposed of by this judgment at the admission stage itself. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they were old residents of the village in question and were cultivators. Their an cestral house stood at the point marked 'x' in the map and they were in possession of the land marked with letters ABCD' in the map as a sehan since before the abolition of Zamindari. They had their Well marked 'm', and had other structures for keeping cattle on its land. After abolition of Zamindari, the land marked ABCD' be came their property under Section 9 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act ('u. P. Z. A. L. R. Act', for short ). The defendant- first set (No. 1 to 12) (present appellants) were trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs although they had no right thereon. These defendants had their house towards the east and north of the land in question. They had illegally broken the troughs meant for the cattle and had illegally started making some constructions there on, the portion on which the constructions were made by indicated by points 'xi to X6' in the map. They had also raised a shop on the point indicated by letters 'x7 to X10' of the map and had made other con structions at XI1 to X14. Accordingly, the prayer for injunction was made for a direc tion for removal of the illegal construc tions from the land of the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos. 1 to 12 came up with a written statement. According to the defendant, the suit property was having new plot 486 corresponding to old plot 1206. It was stated that during consolida tion operations, the land was recorded as Baagh Bhumidhar of the defendants. An application was filed by defendants, Raghunath and others, under Section 229 of the U. P. Z. A. L. R. Act and on 26-4- 1994 this plot 486 with an area of 790 Karl was declared as Baag Bhumidhari of Raghunath and others. The plaintiffs had full knowledges of this decision. It was asserted that old plot 1206 was in occupa tion of the ancestors of the defendats as Bhumidhar and they had planted mango and other trees and bamboo groves there on and were in possession thereof. The structures for keeping catties were also there for the cattle of the defendants only. The Well sunk by defendant Chhangur. The defendants also claimed the land with the help of Sec. 9of the UP. Z. A. L. R. Act. The Trial court framed the following issues: (1) If the plaintiff was the owner and oc cupier of the suit property ? (2) If the suit was barred by limitation? (3) If the suit was barred under the prin ciple of estoppel? (4) If the suit was under-valued? (5) If the disputed structures were liable to be demolished? (6) If the plaintiffs were entitled to any compensation and to what other reliefs the plaintiffs were entitled?
(3.) THE trial Court decreed the suit only for the portion marked by letters by Ka, Kha, C Ga in the plaint map (120ka-2 ). THE defendants were directed to remove the structures made thereon within 3 months and were further directed not to disturb the possession of the plain tiffs in that portion of the land. THE map (120 Ka-2) was to form a part of the decree. THE suit for the rest of the portion of the suit land was dismissed. The first appellate court decreed the suit for the whole of the suit plot as per plaint map and directed the defendants to remove the structures thereon within a month and the defendants were further directed not to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession over the suit proper ty. The line drawn to denote the portion Ka, Kha, C and Ga in map (120 Ka 2) was ordered to be deleted and the map (120 Ka 2) in its original form was made part of the decree.;