ANIL KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohinuddin Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ravi Shankar Tewari, learned Counsel for the respondents. This is the defendants second appeal by which he has challenged the judgment and decree dated 20.2.2008, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow and judgment and decree dated 9.8.1999, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lucknow.
(2.) FACTS giving arise to the dispute are that the plaintiff Hira Devi Shiksha Sa- miti through its President, Sri Radhey Shyani Gupta had purchased a plot No. 663 situated at Abadi Mohalla Itaunja, Pargana Mahona, Tehsil Malihabad, district Lucknow, through a registered sale-deed executed on 1.9.1977 by Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, the authorized agent of Rani Damyanti Kaur, the owner in possession of the said plot for use by Hira Devi Shiksha Samiti Girls School, Itauja and after purchasing and taking possession of the said plot, the plaintiff started digging foundations for erecting boundary of the plot purchased on 5.9.1977 also trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff from using the land, as such the plaintiff having no other opinion but to file a suit for permanent injunction. The defendant No. 2 (Mahesh Prasad) in the said suit filed his written statement, inter alia, stating therein that Rani Damyanti Kaur was not the owner of the alleged property suit and Bhanu Pratap Singh was not the Mukhtar of Smt. Rani Damyanti Kaur and the plaintiff had no right to purchase it and the title in the property alleged to be subject-matter of the suit never passed to he plaintiff through the alleged ficti- tious sale-deed and the plaintiff is not the owner of the alleged property in suit, not in possession of it and thus has no right to file the suit. On the basis of the pleadings by the parties learned Trial Court had framed the following issued : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 500 from defendants"
(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff has been the owner in possession of property consisting in plot No. 665 and so he is entitled to obtain the relief on permanent injunction? Thereafter, taking into consideration the pleadings, evidence led by the parties and after hearing them the Trial Court by means of judgment and decree dated 19.8.1999 allowed the suit of the plaintiff thereby restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession over the property in question.;