SHIV SHANKER PANDEY Vs. VISHWANATH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14-11-1984 passed by the Learned III Ad ditional District Judge. Azamgarh in Civil Appeal No. 136 of 1983 reversing the judg ment and decree dated 26-3-1983 passed by the learned Munsif, Mohammadabad Gohna, Azamgarh in the original suit No. 767 of 1981 partly allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit for permanent injunc tion restraining the defendants permanent ly from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the land shown by letters 'ka Kha Ta Tha' in map 15-A which was made part of the decree.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondents had filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants on the ground that by vir tue of partition between the ancestors, the parties were occupying different part of the property and had constructed their respective houses thereon. In between the two houses the land was claimed as Sehan, Courtyard with a Thatched hut of the plaintiffs' house, which was encroached by the defendants by building cattle troughs for which the prayer for permanent injunction as well as man datory injunction for removing the cattle troughs were prayed for. THE defendants' case was that the father of the plaintiffs had constructed a new house on the North of the ancestral' house which was presently occupied by the plaintiffs and that there was a house of one Laxmidas to the South of the house of the plaintiffs and the ances tors of the defendants were desciple of Laxmidas and Laxmidas had given the said house to Someshwar Pandey vide a deed on 5-8-1907 and that the father of the plain tiffs had relinquished half of the house in favour of Ram Autar Pandey and since then the defendants are in exclusive pos session of the land 'ka Kha Ga Gha' right from the time of Rajaram and Ram Autar and that they had planted trees put thatch and constructed cattle throughs long before in 1981 and that the said land is settled in favour of the defendants under Section 9 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, therefore, they had denied the right of the plaintiffs.

(3.) MR. Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents on the other hand had filed a cross- objection. In the said cross- objection he had challenged certain finding of facts as against the plain tiffs. But at the very outset MR. Faujdar Rai has submitted that he is not processing his cross-objection at this stage. In such cir cumstance the cross-objection is dis missed as not pressed.