VISHWA NATH Vs. RAMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decree dated 21/09/1978, passed by District Judge, Sultanpur, in Civil Appeal No. 248 of 1978, arising out of Suit No. 65 of 1974.

(2.) Ramraj and others, respondents brought a suit against Vishwa Nath and another appellants for perpetual injunction to restrain them from interfering with the former's possession over the land in suit. The respondents also claimed relief for demolition of construction raised by the appellants over the land in suit and for possession. It was alleged by the respondents that they are owners - in possession of the land in suit and the appellants have no concern with the same. The suit was resisted by the appellants on the ground that the land in suit is in possession of the appellants since the time of their ancestors and the disputed constructions were made by the appellants in place of their 'Marha' which existed on the site.

(3.) The learned Additional Munsif who tried the suit held that the respondents are not owners of the land in suit and are not entitled to cause the disputed constructions to be demolished or to recover possession of the land in suit. It was further held that the suit is barred by time. Consequently it was decided that the respondents are not entitled to any relief and the suit was dismissed with costs on 25/02/1978. The learned District Judge reversed the findings of the trial court in appeal. He held that the respondents have acquired title to the land in suit and are entitled to the relief of injunction. He found that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit, with the result that the appeal was allowed and the decree passed by the trial court was set aside on 21/09/1978. The suit for mandatory injunction was decreed and the appellants were directed to remove the constructions existing on the land in suit shown by letters 'A, B, C, D' in Amin's map (paper No. I S-C/ 2) within a month. The suit was further decreed for permanent injunction and the appellants were restrained from interfering with the possession of the respondents over the said land. The costs incurred by the respondents in both the courts were also ordered to be paid to them by the appellants.