RAM HARAKH Vs. NARAIN ALIAS BODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.5.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad in Civil Appeal No. 418 of 1993 whereby suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed. Ram Harakh (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) filed a suit for permanent injunction stating that to the north of the land in dispute shown by letters 'Aa', 'Ba', 'Sa' and 'Da' in the plaint map, adjoins his old ancestral house prior to abolition of zamindari; the land in dispute and the house adjoin each other and a door opens in it; subsequent to abolition of zamindari, the land in dispute vested in his predecessor's, as its owner; the land in dispute was being used as abadi to the knowledge of the village inhabitants and that of the Gram Sabha, since considerable period; the defendants have no concern with the same, even then they threatened to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession, hence the suit.

(2.) A written statement was filed stating that the defendants are in possession of the disputed for the last 30 years, in which they used to tether their cattle and for the purposes connected therewith; the plot in dispute is erstwhile 'sehan' and through the same a 'nabdan' also flows; the plaint map is contrary to the spot position; during consolidation the disputed land was earmarked as abadi for the defendants.

(3.) The trial Court upon consideration of evidence found that the plaintiff failed to adduce any material on record that the disputed land was given to him during consolidation, although in cross-examination he had stated that the disputed land was a chak of one Ram Gopal, but the possession was of the plaintiff and that during the consolidation the same was allotted to him. Thus, the trial Court disbelieved the case of the plaintiff on his own admission that on one hand, he admitted that the disputed land was a chak of one Ram Gopal but given to him subsequently and on the other, the same is in his possession for the last 30 years, thus, there was an inherent contradiction in his case. The trial Court further found that the defendants have a patta of the disputed land from the Gaon Sabha. The Court found no possession of plaintiff and dismissed the suit.