HABIBULLAH Vs. BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff-appellant against the impugned Judgment and decree dated 22.9.1978 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, dismissing the appeal and affirming the Judgment and decree dated 31.7.1976 passed by IVth Additional Munsif, Pratapgarh.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction, demolition, possession and damages due to felling of the trees, with the allegation that he was abadi holder of the land in suit shown with letters A B C D in the sketch map replaced by the map made by the Commissioner and he was in possession over the same. Over the land in dispute, there is a house, saria and dalaan of the plaintiff and there exists one Mahwa and one Neem tree planted by the appellant. He was in possession since the time of his ancestors over the land in dispute. The land in suit had been settled with him under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the defendant-respondent had no concern nor was ever in possession of the same. The respondent had cut away the aforesaid trees causing a loss to the tune of Rs.100/- and are also threatening to raise construction on the land in suit as well as to change its character which necessitated the filing of the suit.

(3.) Upon hearing the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issues and after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, it recorded findings that the plaintiff is not the owner of the land in question; the alleged construction is not liable to be demolished; the plaintiff is not entitled to any amount of damages; and the suit is maintainable. All the five issues were decided accordingly. With the above findings, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed with cost, vide Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.1976.