Ajit Kumar, J. - (1.)Heard Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.)This appeal had been admitted vide order dated 05.01.1987 on the following substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of Appeal:
(a) Whether the present defence of the respondent was barred on account of earlier suit of 1967 decided in favour of appellant?

(b) Whether the own admission made by the defendant-respondent proved that the shop was taken by Nagar Palika and the case of adverse possession was proved?

I have gone through the judgments of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court and have perused the records.

(3.)In order to appreciate as to whether these two substantial questions of law really arise from the two judgments of the Courts below which are non concurrent, it is necessary to appreciate the facts. According to the plaint case there is a Well between the office of the Congress Party and Rani Wala Madarsa and towards the South of the Well a Piyau (public place to offer drinking water hereinafter referred to as Piyau) with a Kothri beneath it. This Piyau is solid (Pakka) and permanent and it is being run by the plaintiff and the plaintiff claims to be the owner in possession. He further claims that the well is also a part of the Piyau.