KALLU AND ANOTHER Vs. RAM SAJEEWAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants at the admission stage. These second appeals arise out of two suits bearing, O.S. No. 1444 of 1989 Ram Sajeewan and two others Vs. Kallu and others and, O.S. No. 82 of 1990 Kallu and another Vs. Ram Sajeewan and others. Kallu and Mewa Lal appellants in both these appeals are real brothers. Both the suits were consolidated and decided by IIIrd Additional Munsif, Allahabad through judgment and decree dated 25.08.1992. The suit filed by Ram Sajeewan and two others (O.S. No. 1444 of 1989) was decreed and the suit filed by Kallu and Mewa Lal was dismissed. Against the said decrees two appeals were filed being Civil Appeal No. 1314 of 1994 and Civil Appeal No. 385 of 1994. Both the appeals were dismissed on 24.10.2011 by Additional District Judge, Court No. 19, Allahabad hence these second appeals. Both the suits related to the same property and were for permanent prohibitory injunction.

(2.) RAM Sajeewan, Ram Chandra and Ram Singh all sons of Ram Narayan plaintiffs in the suit of 1989 and defendant nos.1 to 3 in the suit of 1990 pleaded that they along with the other defendants in the suit of 1990 were joint owners/bhumidhar of 7 plots nos. 1035 to 1041 total area 1 bigha 19 biswa and in the oral partition the property in dispute had come in their father's share who constructed his house over plot no.1035 area 9 biswa. It was only this plot which was in dispute.

(3.) FATHER of Ram Sajeewan had constructed two houses. Appellants categorically admitted that over plot no.1035 in the revenue record, the names of Ram Sajeewan and his two brothers i.e. respondent no.1 to 3 in this appeal were recorded in the revenue record. However they asserted that the names were wrongly recorded and continued in the revenue record. It was further contended by the present appellants that in this plot no. 1035 they were having their houses Sahan etc. Both the courts below after perusal of the entire evidence held that present appellants had no right over the land in dispute. D.W.3 Nanku almost disproved the case of the appellants. At one place he stated that over the land in dispute house of Kallu and Mewa Lal was situated which they had inherited but thereafter he stated that at that time no house was in existence and that the house which he stated to be existing on the dispute land had fallen down and the house which had fallen down was constructed 20 -25 years before. Accordingly, there was no question of existence of house of appellants on 01.07.1952 (when Zamindari was abolished) and settlement of the same with the present appellants under Section 9 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.