RAJ KUMARI Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ranjit Asthana for the contesting respondent No.2.

(2.) The petitioners instituted an Original Suit No. 160 of 1986 for permanent prohibitory injunction against Sumer (defendant no.1) and Ram Milan (defendant no.2) so as to ensure that they do not interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in suit and do not raise any constructions or cut away the trees standing thereon. The disputed land was described in the plaint by letters A, B, C, D alleged to be located over plot No. 2486/2, having an area of 80 Kari. It was claimed that the petitioners were owners in possession of the land in suit as well as the trees and well standing/ located thereon and that the defendants had no right to interfere. The defendants filed written statement denying title and possession of the plaintiffs and claiming that the trees, etc. standing over the land in suit were owned and possessed by them. It was claimed that the land in suit was their "Sehan Abadi" over which they had been in possession since prior to abolition of "Zamindari" and, therefore, the same had vested in them by virtue of Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

(3.) A Survey Commissioner was appointed by the Court, who submitted a report (Annexure CA.1) wherein it was stated that by taking two fixed points, situated in plot Nos. 2623 and 2327, the property in suit was sought to be identified but it was not possible to demarcate the area of 80 kari pertaining to plot No.2486. In the map appended to the Survey Commission Report, the house of the defendant and the house of Sudarshan Yadav (not party in the suit), who is the contesting respondent No.2 herein, was shown to be located adjoining the suit property.