Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Anil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the Caveator-Respondents.

2. This First Appeal From Order has come up for admission today.

3. This First Appeal From Order is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.5.2009 and the decree dated 25.5.2009, passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Sonbhadra, in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2008, setting aside the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2008, passed by the learned Trial Court in Case No. 142 of 1997, Hradeshwar Nath v. Nandlal and another.

4. It emerges from the record that a Suit was filed in the year 1997 by one Hradeshwar Nath, the appellant herein, against the respondents, Nandlal and Amarnath, seeking permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering in peaceful possession over the agricultural property in dispute and the Bamboo Grove. A restraint order was sought, restraining the respondent from felling and cutting the Bamboo Trees. The Trial Court, that is, the IInd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Sonbhadra, by passing a detailed judgment dated 29th April, 2008, had set at rest the controversy raised in the year 1997, that is, about 11 years ago, holding that the plaintiff-appellant, Hradeshwar Nath, is the owner of the land in dispute and the Bamboo Grove, grown on Plot No. 54 (New No. 66) measuring two Biswa.

5. The Trial Court had framed five issues covering the dispute, whether the plaintiff-appellant was the owner and title holder of the land in dispute over which Bamboo Grove situate, whether the valuation of the property in suit was assessed less and insufficient Court fee was paid, whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, whether the plaint was barred by law of estoppel and acquiescence and whether the plaintiff is entitled for some other relief. All the issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the respondents. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff-appellant has produced the documentary evidence, extracts from the revenue records and Consolidation records to prove his case that the plaintiff-appellant was the owner of the land in dispute and the Bamboo grove. He had produced before the Trial Court Jote Akar Patra 5, Akar Patra-23, Akarpatra 45-Ga to 46-Ga, Intkhab Khatauni (Extracts from the Revenue Record) relating to Mauja Dhubahi, true copy of Khasra, Jot Akar Patra 48-Ga, to prove his case that the land in dispute and the Bamboo Grove belonged to plaintiff-appellant and his name was recorded as owner in the aforementioned record and consolidation records. In addition to this, he had also produced himself and on Indraraj Misra as witnesses.

6. The witnesses had stated that the Bamboo Trees Grove (Bans Kote) was given to Hradeshwarnath. The Trial Court had also dealt with the fact that the land was never allotted to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. Even the witnesses of respondents, like, DW-1, Nandlal and Ram Prasad had submitted that they had not filed any objection during consolidation proceedings. Moreover, they did not point out the location and age of the Bamboo Grove. The reason for not cultivating the land and growing other crops was that an interim order was passed by a competent Court to maintain status quo over the land in dispute was operating. Some vegetables, like Brinzle, Tomato and Paddy were grown near the Bamboo Grove.

7. After appreciating the documentary and oral evidence, the Trial Court had concluded that the land in dispute including the Bamboo Grove was owned and occupied by the plaintiff-appellant. The respondents had made an attempt to cut some Bamboo Trees, which had resulted in initiating civil proceedings against him. The other remaining issues were also answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.

8. This judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 29th April, 2008 was assailed by the respondents in the Court of IInd Additional District Ju