RAJESH Tandon, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Khalil Ahmad, Counsel for the appellants and Shri B. S Parihar, Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) BY the present second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants have prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 6. 5. 2000 passed by the District Judge, Ud-hamsingh Nagar (Rudrapur) in Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1999 by which the judgment and decree dated 20. 7. 1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kashipur, District Udhamsingh Nagar has been set aside. Second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: - 1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the boundary dispute in respect of agricultural land? 2. Whether without a declaration by the competent Revenue Court, a person claiming adverse possession or Shikami can himself to be the Bhumidhar of the agricultural land? Briefly stated, the plaintiffs have filed a suit being suit No. 139 of 1990 for a decree for permanent injunction. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiffs are in the possession of the land khasrn No. 343 area 0. 20 acre 0. 081 Hect. situate at Mauja Amritpur, Tehsil Kashipur, District Nainital for more than the last 25 years. On the land in dispute there is wood depot of the plaintiff and defendants have no concern over the land in dispute and they were never in the possession over the land in dispute. The plaintiffs are in peaceful possession over the land in dispute. A suit being suit No. 86 of 1979 was filed for eviction of the plaintiffs by Anand Priya and other which was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 19. 3. 1981 and appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge by his order dated 26. 11. 1981 in civil appeal No. 71 of 1981. It has been stated that the defendants are cunning and of quarrelling nature and have threatened the plaintiffs that they will occupy the land in dispute forcibly on 13. 6. 1990 and 19. 6. 1990. It has been stated that if the defendants are not restrained from doing the same, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and injuries. Hence the present suit has been filed.
(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendants denying the averments made in the plaint. It has been submitted that the plaintiffs have not come before the Court with clean hands. The plaintiffs have not produced any map along with the plaint with regard to the land in dispute. It has been stated that the total area of khasra No. 343 was 45 acres and Anand Priya was its original khatedar. Out of the aforesaid 45 acres of land, the defendants have purchased the land measuring 25 acres by registered sale deed dated 10. 2. 1988 and since then the defendants are owners in possession over the aforesaid land. The plaintiffs are not in possession over the land shown by letters ka, kha, ga in the map i. e. paper No. 17 Ka/5 annexed with the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. As whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the land in dispute? 2. As to whether the order passed by Munsif, Kashipur in suit No. 86/1979 Anand Priyd v. Habib Ahmad and other has any effect over the instant defendants? 3. As to whether the property in dispute is situate towards North of wall Da, Sa, Kha, Ga as shown by the map paper No. 17 ga/5 annexed with the written statement? 4. Relief?;