RATI RAM Vs. CHET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 22.8.1988 and decree dated 6.9.1988 passed by the lower appellate court allowing the appeal with cost throughout arising out of the judgment and decree dated 4.5.1987 passed by the IVth Additional Munsif, Hardoi dismissing the Regular Suit No.106 of 84.

(2.) Written statement was filed by the defendants no.1 and 2 denying the assertions made in the plaint and in the additional pleas and it was stated that Fakire was not the owner of the entire land shown by letters "K, F, G and J" and in fact Fakire was the owner of house situated on the northern side of land shown by letters "E, D1 and D" and to the western side of the land shown by letters "A, N, M and D" and he was residing in the said house and in respect of the rest of the land, house of the defendants no.3 to 6 was existing along with sahan and they were in possession over the said land. Since before the date of abolition of zamindari Khayali, father of the defendants no.3 to 6 was the owner of the house and the land along with sahan vested in the defendants under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (for short the 'Act'). The defendants no.3 to 6 executed the sale deed in favour of defendants no.1and 2 on 8.7.1980 and on the basis of the said sale deed, defendants no.1 and 2 were in possession and the Fakire was never the owner of the disputed land and after possession was delivered to the defendants, they constructed one kothari on the western side along with one room and is residing in it and on the eastern side defendant no.2 has constructed two rooms facing each other i.e. north and southern side and he put a thatch before that room and is residing in it.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed four issues and after considering the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, preferred an appeal before the appellate court and the lower appellate court after appreciating the arguments of the respective parties, allowed the appeal and found that the trial court has misconstrued and misrepresented the evidence on record, which has resulted in erroneous findings. Hence the present appeal.