ANJUMAN ISLAMIA LAKHIMPUR Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH PITARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-legal heirs/ representatives of the original respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) THROUGH the present second appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 5.12.1978, passed by the Civil Judge, Lakhimpur, dismissing Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1978, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, i.e., the Munsif, Lakhimpur on 5.5.1978. The trial court had dismissed the Suit No. 294 of 1973, Anjuman Islamia Lakhimpur v. Sri Ram Pitarya and another, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction. (The plaintiff appellant had not sought any relief of declaration). Both the courts below, i.e., the trial court and the appellate court have recorded concurrent findings of facts and found the case of the appellant as unfounded and declined to interfere with the possession of the respondents over the land in question, alleged to be a part of the graveyard managed by the appellant.

(3.) SRI S. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents has resisted the appeal. According to him, the appellant has no legal right or title to sue nor it had locus standi to maintain the suit. The suit had been filed by a body known as Anjuman Islamia Lakhimpur through Hakim Manzoor Hussain Khan alleging himself to be its Secretary (mutwalli). The appellant had in fact no right to maintain the suit and only the heirs of the two persons, whose graves allegedly stand over the land in dispute, could have claimed the injunction that there may not be any interference with the graves of their relatives. No such person has come forward till date to claim such relief. The suit was filed with ulterior motive. The respondents had purchased 1.75 acres of land in 1951. This plot was in the naute of grove, which is evident from the boundaries of the plot. The defendant-respondents had built a godown over the land ; they were using and occupying the same since 1951. An unnecessary dispute was raised by the appellant in the year 1973. The disputed plot of land was recorded as grove in the revenue records. The extracts of khasras relating to following years were produced before the courts below and the same were discussed by the lower appellate court too in its judgment : 1. Khasra relating to 1304 F = 1897 AD 2.Khasra relating to 1328 F = 1921 AD, and 3. Khasra relating to 1345 F = 1938 AD. It was indicated that the plot No. 153 (new), old No. 142, measuring 1.75 acres was recorded in the name of Sheetal Nau. This land was recorded a ?rove and as per Section 57 of the U. P. L. R. Act, 1901, the entries in concurrent records of latest settlement are presumed to be correct unless rebutted by cogent evidence. In this regard. SRI Mehrotra has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Lalbihari and others v. Ram Adhar and others, 1985 (3) LCD 415 : 1986 AWC 9.