SADA NAND Vs. BAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the plaintiff's suit was decreed and the defendant's first appeal was allowed, the instant Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgement and decree dated 12.4.1978 by which the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiffs had come up with a case that they were in possession over the land in dispute and that they required it as their land appurtenant and sehan. When the defendants interfered with their possession, they filed the suit for a relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Subsequently, the petitioners amended their plaint and tried to get the advantage of the provisions of Sec. 122 B (4F) of The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Still further, by an amendment, they added a prayer that they be put back in possession if found out of it. The trial court while decreeing the suit primarily found that the plaintiffs-appellants were owners in possession over the plot in question. It gave the plaintiffs the benefit of Sec. 122 B (4F) of the Act and concluded that once when the plaintiffs were owners in possession, the disputed plot as has been claimed by the defendants could not have been allotted to the defendants by the Gaon Sabha by way of allotments dated 9.11975. The First Appellate Court reversed the finding of possession and ownership as had been arrived at by the trial court and concluded that the plaintiffs were not the owners in possession over the plot in question. The Appellate Court also found that the plaintiffs were already having their sehan which was appurtenant to their houses. Thus, after reversing the findings of fact and after reassessment of the evidence available, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of ownership and possession, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

(3.) The plaintiffs/appellants submitted that the First Appellate Court reversed the findings as had been arrived at by the trial court in a very perfunctory manner and did not apply its mind while doing so. The reliance placed by the trial court on exhibit no. 2 was proper and that the plaintiffs not only had acquired an indefeasible right over the property in question but were also entitled to the benefit of Sec. 122B (4F) of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.