- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This is a second appeal preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 16-12-1983 passed by Sri D. N. Shukla, 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad dismissing Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1982 and thereby upholding the judgment and decree dated 18-11-1981 passed by Sri Jagdisfawar Singh, Vlth Additional Munsif, Allahabad where by the decreed original Suit No. 282 of 1978, Shiv Manual & others v. Ram Pratap & others. The trial Court granted the permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff- respondents whereby the order for demolition of construction was also made and the defendant-appellants were restrained from making any construction in future.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondents filed a suit in the trial Court on the main allegations that the plaintiffs along with defendants 1 and 2 were Bhumidhars of grove in plot No. 150 area 12 Biswa in village Bikapur. THE grievance of the-plaintiffs is that the defendants raised construction on a portion towards the road side despite the Court's prohibitory orders. The plea of the defendant-appellants is that the plaintiffs have no concern with the land in dispute and the land belonged to them. One Amar Jeet Singh Chandra Bhan had built a house after purchasing two Biswas land from defendants 1 and 2. The trial Court after holding the trial gave a finding that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 had one half share in plot No. 150 while plaintiff No. 3 had 1/6th share while the remaining 1/6th share was held by Amar Jeet, Chandra Bhan under a sale deed, while the defendant No. 3 had no share. It was also held by the trial Court that Amar Jeet and Chandra Bhan had constructed a hotel on the north-eastern portion of the plot and the rest of the land was in possession of the plaintiffs. It was also held by the trial Court that the construction was not four years old, but it was constructed just one or two days earlier when the suit was filed and was completed during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court has also gave a finding that the suit was maintainable and it is not barred by limitation. On these findings, the suit was decreed by the trial Court.
(3.) ON an appeal preferred by the defendant-appellants, the lower appellate Court also gave a finding to the effect that the construction was started just one or two days earlier before the filing of suit and it was done despite the temporary injunction of the trial Court and justified the order passed for demolition. It was also held that the plaintiffs has major share to the extent of 2/3rd and the defendants 1 and 2 had only 1/6th share while the remaining 1/6th share was in possession of Amar Jeet and Chandra Bhan. It was also held by the lower appellate Court that without the consent of the plaintiffs, the construction could not be made towards north-eastern side which is best piece of land. ON these findings, the lower appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at substantial length. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no order showing the ownership of the plaintiff-respondents in the revenue record.;