H. N. Seth, J. - (1.) (for self and for V. K. Mehrotra, J.) :-Defendants Naslr Uddin, Abdul Razzaq and Mohd. Siddiq, being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree by the Additional Civil Judge, Bijnor dismissing their appeal have filed this second appeal.
(2.) CHAUDHRI Ram Swarup filed a suit in the court of Munsif Bijnor alleging that plot No. 1045/1, village Noorpur which had an area of 1 Bigha 14 biswas, was his Bhumidhari. He, by a sale deed dated 31-10-1958, sold an area of 1 bigha and 10 biswas of plot to defendants Nos. 4-7. From out of the remaining 4 biswas of the plot (705 sq. yards) abutting on Gohana Road towards south, he, by a sale deed dated 19th December 1958 transferred an area of 345 sq. yds. to defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and an area of 260 Sq. Yds. of land remained with him. In the year 1960 defendants Nos. 1 to 7 illegally encroached upon that land and ousted him from its possession. Accordingly he had to approach the court asking for a decree for defendants' ejectment from and possession over, the land. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit and denied that they had made any encroachment on the land that, after execution of the two sale deeds, was left with the plaintiff. They alleged that in between December 15, 1958 and March 1959 they had set up constructions valued at Rs. 30,000/- on the land which had been sold to them and claimed that in any case the suit for their ejectment was barred by principles of estoppel and acquiescence. They also questioned the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit. Remaining defendants did not file any written statement and the suit proceeded ex parte against them. The trial court framed an issue on the question of civil court's jurisdiction to try the suit and tried it as a preliminary issue. It held that civil courts had jurisdiction to try the suit and proceeded to decide it on merits. It found that the defendants had encroached upon the land belonging to the plaintiff and that the suit was not barred by principles of estoppel and acquiescence. In the result the court, vide its judgment dated 8th February, 1964, decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession over the land marked AKJL with costs and permitted the defendants to remove their constructions within a period of one month of the date of the decree.
(3.) BEING aggrieved, defendants Nos, 1 to 3 filed an appeal which was- disposed of by the Additional Civil Judge Bijnor by his order dated 5-5-1965. Although Sin their memorandum of appeal the defendants had raised a ground with regard to the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit, but it appears they did not press it before the appellate court. On merits the appellate court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal, It however extended the time allowed to the defendants for removing their constructions up to 5th July, 1965. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, the defendants filed this appeal in the year 1965. Apart from challenging the decree on merits, the appellant again raised the plea that the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit was, in view of the provisions contained in Section 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, barred.;