MUKHTAR ALI Vs. RAM MANORATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Sri Nirmit Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shyam Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This second appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dtd. 17/12/1987, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 157 of 1986; Ram Manorath and others v. Mukhtar Ali by the Civil Judge, Bahraich, by which the appeal preferred by the defendant-respondents was allowed and the judgment and decree dtd. 21/10/1986, passed in Regular Suit No. 85 of 1983;Mukhtar Ali v. Ram Manorath and others by the Second Additional Munsif, Bahraich has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed with a prayer that the decree passed by the trial court be restored with cost throughout.

(3.) The suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff-appellant with regard to the property-in-dispute with Khandhar thereon, the site plan of which was given with the Commission report dtd. 23/3/1983 with the boundaries as a-b-c-d, which was purchased through two registered sale-deeds by the plaintiff-appellant from Bacha Ram and Kripa Ram son of Bharose, Village Belbharia,District Bahraich. The plaintiff-appellant purchased the said land by means of the registered sale-deed dtd. 16/2/1983 in consideration of Rs.1,000.00 from Bacha Ram and the remaining portion through registered sale-deed dtd. 16/7/1984 in consideration of Rs.1,500.00 from Kripa Ram and the possession was handed over by them and since then he was the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. Thereafter the plaintiff-appellant had constructed the wall around the property-in-dispute. The defendant-respondents have no concern with the said property-in-dispute but they threatened to take possession of the property-in-dispute and on denial, did not recused themselves, therefore the suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant. It has also been alleged through amendment that the defendant-respondents have forcibly made possession on the land in dispute during pendency of the suit. Therefore the relief of possession was also sought by the plaintiff-appellant by way of amendment. The relief has also been sought through amendment for demolition of the thatch etc. on the land in dispute put by the respondent-defendants.