- (1.) RAJIV Sharma, J. Heard Sri P. K. Khare, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. C. Mukherji, Counsel appearing for the answering respondents.
(2.) IT is submitted that Brij Mohan, father of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and Jageshwar father of respondent Nos. 7 to 10 preferred a Suit No. 256 of 1999 in the Court of Munsif Sadar, Pratapgarh against the petitioner's father and Bachchu Lal for possession and damages with respect to plot No. 612. In the plaint it was averred the Paltu Ram, the predecessor in interest of respondents had purchased the house with trees standing on the land in an auction sale and on 30. 11. 1912, they had obtained the possession. Siyambar, the brother of Paltu Ram took the possession of the house which was ultimately inherited by Smt. Radha Kunwari, the widow of Paltu Ram. IT is said that through a gift deed dated 7th August, 1935 the house and the trees standing on it were transferred in favour of father of respondent No. 3-5 and father of respondent No. 7-10. In the plaint, it was further averred that the original house fell down and in its place a kothari was built which was given to the petitioner's father to look after. The father of the petitioner had initiated proceeding under sec tion 145, Cr. P. C. and in the said proceeding an order was passed on 30. 1. 1964 by which the possession of land in dispute i. e. , the kothari and the trees standing over the land, was given to the petitioner's father. Father of the petitioner, namely. Bhagelu filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and it was stated that the suit property never belonged to predecessors of respondent No. 3-5 and respondent No. 7-10. Neither the trees were planted nor any house was constructed by the plaintiffs father as alleged in the plaint. On the contrary, it was stated that in the revenue records, the name of the predecessor in interest of the defendants is recorded and Jagoo had constructed a house, which had fallen down, there fore, his daughter Shukana and his husband Hulas constructed another house over it about 40 years ago. Further, the old trees had fallen down and the de fendant had planted new trees in their place, which are in their possession. It was specifically stated that the defendants are the successors of Hulas.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the aforesaid Suit No. 256 of 1969 filed by the respondents plaintiff was decreed by the judg ment and order dated 22. 10. 1973 and a direction was issued to the defendants to handover the possession of disputed land. He also pointed out that the land of which the possession has been ordered to be given by the defendants to the plaintiff is not clear from the judgment of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the petitioner's father Bhagelu filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Pratapgarh, which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 1. 12. 1978 and not only the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set-aside but the suit was also dis missed.;