B.AMIT STHALEKAR,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This is the plaintiffs' second appeal. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction as well as for declaration. According to the plaintiffs, they and the defendants belong to Hindu undivided family and that the house and agricultural property were used jointly by them. The plots in dispute are No. 99 area 15 decimal and plot No. 100 part thereof south portion of which is marked as Ya, Ra, La and Wa (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). The trial court framed issues. The suit was contested by the defendants and written statement was also filed denying the allegation. It was denied that the plaintiffs and defendants were members of the joint Hindu family and it was also denied that there was any joint property between them. It was stated that the entire property in Mauja Veerpatti was abadi of which partition had already been taken place in 1913 and each of the beneficiaries under the partition was in occupation of his own share. Plot in dispute is No. 99 area 15 decimal demarcated as ABCD and part of plot No. 100 marked by the alphabets Ya Ra La Va.
(3.) The plaintiff Radhey Shyam appeared as P.W. 1 and filed affidavit paper no. 108ka which bears his signature. In the cross examination he submitted that plot no. 99 is recorded in the name of Ram Kishun. Ram Kishun had three sons namely Deena Nath, Shri Nath and Vijay Nath. Deena Nath had died and was succeeded by his heirs Sanjay and his wife. After the death of Ram Kishun his son's name was entered in the revenue record. At present name of Shri Nath and Vijay Nath as well as wife and son of Deena Nath are entered in the revenue record. He also stated that name of his grand father is also entered in the revenue record but his name has not been mentioned there. Plot no. 100 is abadi land. The plaintiff Radhey Shyam stated that he did not know that it was portion of Smt. Sawari Devi and one third part of the plot belonged to Bindeshwari Mishra and his house is on plot no. 100, to the south west of plot no. 100 is the plot no. 99. House of Deena Nath extra is situated in plot no. 100 which is to the west of plot no. 99. The plaintiff Radhey Shyam did not know on which plot was the house of Deena Nath. To the east of plot no. 99 is the house of the defendants. The plot no. 99 is recorded in the name of defendants and the plaintiffs had also filed a suit for cancellation of their names from the said plot but defendants continue to be in possession of the plot no. 99.;