- (1.) IN all these four appeals, facts are similar and common questions of law are involved, as such, the same are being dis posed of by this common judgment. Sec ond Appeal No. 587 of 2001 (Old No. 551 of 1987), is directed against the judg ment and decree dated 27. 10. 1986, passed by Additional Civil Judge, Nainital in Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1984, whereby said appeal is dismissed affirming the dismissal of civil suit No. 52 of 1978 by the trial court (Munsif, Kashipur ). Second Appeal No. 588 of 2001 (Old No. 552 of 1987), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27. 10. 1986, passed by Additional Civil Judge, Nainital, in Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1984, dismissing the same and affirming the dismissal of suit No. 50 of 1978, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Kashipur ). Second Appeal No. 589 of 2001 (Old No. 550 of 1987), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27. 10. 1986, passed by Additional Civil Judge, Nainital in Civil Appeal No. 120 of 1984, dismissing the same and affirming the dismissal of suit No. 49 of 1978, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Kashipur) and Second Appeal No. 590 of 2001 (Old No. 540 of 1987), is di rected against the judgment and decree dated 27. 10. 1986, passed by learned Ad ditional Civil Judge, Nainital, in Civil Ap peal No. 122 of 1984, dismissing the same and affirming the dismissal of suit No. 51 of 1978, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Kashipur ).
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the par ties and perused the lower court record. Brief facts of the case relating to Second Appeal No. 587 of 2001, are that plaintiff/appellant-Sudhir Kumar, insti tuted suit No. 52 of 1978, with the plead ing that he is recorded tenure holder (bhumidhar) of plot No. 144 M measur ing area 9. 90 Acres, situated in Village Kharmasi, Tehsil Kashipur, District Nainital (now part of District Udham Singh Nagar ). It is further pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff/appellant is in pos session of the land through his Manager-K. K. Bhatia, who is cultivating the land on behalf of the plaintiff. Defendants/re spondents forcibly want to take posses sion of aforesaid land and they made an attempt to this effect on 22. 03. 1978. With these pleadings, plaintiff sought suit for permanent injunction against the defend ants/respondents that they be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in suit No. 52 of 1978. In Second Appeal No. 588 of 2001, brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-Vijay Kumar instituted suit No. 50 of 1978, with the pleading that he is recorded tenure holder of plot No. 144 M, measuring area 0. 25 Acres, plot No. 145 M, measuring area 0. 45 Acres, plot No. 146 M, measuring area 8. 94 Acres, plot No. 147 M measuring area 0. 38 Acres and plot No. 155 M, measuring area 1. 05 Acres of land, situated in Vil lage Kharmasi, Tehsil Kashipur. It is fur ther pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff appellant that the plaintiff is in posses sion of the land in suit through his Man ager K. K. Bhatia, through whom the land is being cultivated. It is alleged that the defendants/respondents forcibly want to take possession of the land and they made an attempt in this regard on 22. 03. 1978. With these pleadings, the plaintiff/appel lant sought relief of permanent injunc tion in the suit restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in suit No. 50 of 1978.
(3.) IN Second Appeal No. 589 of 2001, brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/appellant Subhash Mittal insti tuted suit No. 49 of 1978 with the plead ing that he is recorded tenure holder (Bhumidhar) of plot No. 155 M measur ing area of 15 Acres, situated in Village Kharmasi, Tehsil Kashipur. It is further pleaded in the plaint that he is in posses sion of the land through his Manager K. K. Bhatia, who is cultivating the land on his behalf. It is further pleaded that the de fendants/respondents forcibly want to take possession of the land in suit and they made an attempt in this regard on 22. 03. 1978. With these pleadings suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunc tion restraining the defendants/respond ents from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in suit No. 49 of 1978. In Second Appeal No. 590 of 2001, brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant Naresh Kumar insti tuted suit No. 51 of 1978, with the plead ing that he is recorded tenure holder (bhumidhar) of plot No. 141/2m, meas uring area 0. 16 Acres. Plot No. 142/2 M measuring area 3. 30 Acres and plot No. 144 M measuring area 15. 79 Acres, situ ated in Village Kharmasi, Tehsil Kahsipur. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff/appellant is in possession of the land through his Manager K. K. Bhatia, who is cultivating the land on his behalf. It is further pleaded that the defendants/respondents want to take forcible pos session of the land and they made an attempt in this regard on 22. 03. 1978. With these pleadings plaintiff has sought permanent injunction retraining defend ants from interfering in his possession over land in suit No. 51 of 1978.;