The Plaintiff's recorded tenure holder status and possession of the land supported her claim for injunction, and the suit was maintainable in the civil court despite objections based on Section 331 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

This appeal, preferred under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against judgment and decree dated 20-08-2004, in Original Suit No. 407 of 1996, passed by learned Additional District Judge/fast Track Court I, Dehradun, whereby said suit has been decreed in favour of the Plaintiff, granting injunction against the defendant/appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Plaintiff/respondent- Rahiman Bai Guddi, instituted aforementioned suit No. 407 of 1996 with the pleadings that she was owner and in possession of khata No. 186, plot No. 25/3, measur ing area 0. 300 and plot No. 46/11, measuring area 0. 814 in village-Haripur Kalan, Tehsil and District-Dehradun. It is further pleaded that she was recorded tenure holder of aforesaid land,

which is shown by letters aa ba sa da with its boundaries in the map annexed with the Plaint. From the year 1969 to 1976, on aforesaid land, Plaintiff used to run a factory in the name and style- M/s Jai Chemicals, which was ancillary unit of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Rishikesh. On the east of said land, defendant pur chased a plot and constructed her house. In the south of defendants aforesaid plot, there is a raasta land for his approach towards the main road. In the year 1996, taking advantage of the absence of the Plaintiff, defendant opened her door towards west over the land, shown by letters aa ba sa da and by collecting soil, made at tempt to give shape of raasta over the strip of aforesaid land. The defendant has no right to have passage over this land. Hence the suit for injunction against the defendant/appellant, was in stituted by the Plaintiff/respondent for injunction not to interfere in the peace ful possession of land aa ba sa da. Also, a mandatory injunction was sought that the defendant should close his western door towards the disputed land. (During the pendency of this ap peal, after death of Plaintiff, her legal representatives were substituted ).

3. The suit was contested by the defendant (present appellant) before the trial court, who filed her written statement, denying the contents of the plaint allegations. But it is admitted in the written statement that the defend ant has constructed her house over the plot on the east of the disputed land and has opened a door towards the western side. It is further pleaded by the defendant in the additional pleas that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the dis puted raasta land, which is shown to be part of aa ba sa da in the Plaint map. It is denied by her that the Plaintiff is owner and in possession of the entire land, shown in the Plaint map as aa ba sa da. It is alleged that land of plot No. 18. 0 and 181 are jointly owned by the defendant with one Ved Prakash. It is further pleaded that de fendant along with other villagers uses the disputed passage from the time prior to the purchase of the plot, shown in the east of the disputed land. Lastly, it is pleaded that the suit is not legally maintainable in the civil court.

4. Learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

1. Whether the property in suit, which includes disputed passage is owned by and in possession of the Plaintiff?

2. Whether the suit is legally not maintainable?

3. To what relief, if any, the Plaintiff is entitled?

After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial court found that the Plaintiff has been able to establish her bhumidhari rights and possession over the land in ques tion and accordingly decreed the suit with costs against the defendant, direct ing her not to interfere in the peaceful possession of plot No. 25/3 and 46/11 of village Haripur Kalan, shown by let ters aa ba sa da in the Plaint map. It is further directed by the trial court that the soil collected by the de fendant over the disputed land with in tention to give a shape of raasta land be removed, and door ka (shown in Plaint map), opened towards western side of the plo