Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—This is a defendant’s second appeal arising out of suit filed by plaintiffs-respondents for injunction restraining defendant and for damages against defendant-appellant on the ground that disputed property of Plot No. 25 measuring about 1.577 hectares situated in village Khanalampura Post and District Saharanpur, plaintiffs’ father was in possession of said property. Sri Tahir Hasan father of plaintiffs died on 15.12.1977 and plaintiffs as well as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 their names have been recorded on the basis of application before Tehsildar. An application on behalf of Nagar Palika was also made. Plaintiffs’ application was allowed and name of plaintiffs in place of Tahir Hasan was recorded and application of Nagar Palika was rejected. Against this order, Nagar Palika filed an appeal that has been dismissed and revision too after hearing both the parties was rejected by order dated 5.2.1992. In such circumstances, plaintiffs have become Bhoomidhar and occupant of said property.

2. Inspite of aforesaid fact an application was filed by Nagar Palika without any information to plaintiffs and he got an order in his favour. When plaintiffs came to know they made an application and that order was cancelled by order dated 17.3.1993, Tehsildar has again recorded name of plaintiffs. In the year 1963, a sale deed was executed in favour of Nagar Palika by Tahir Hasan but actual physical possession was never taken and Nagar Palika was never in possession of said property and their names were never recorded in the revenue record. Therefore, in view of sale deed, if they got any right that has come to an end by lapse of time. Plaintiffs’ father’s name was always recorded as ex-proprietary tenant. On 4.8.1972 in the area of Saharanpur, U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act made applicable and in view of abolition of Zamindari in that area, disputed land vest in the State and every right of Nagar Palika has come to an end and in view of provisions of Tenancy Act, plaintiffs have become Sirdar of the land. Nagar Palika was only to get some compensation which they have received. Further averment was made that after abolition of U.P. Urban Area Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1972, father of plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ possession as Sirdar and subsequently as Bhoomidhar continued. In such circumstances, plaintiffs are in possession of land of his own rights.

3. Defendant filed their written statement and denied claim made by plaintiffs-respondents. It has been stated that plaintiffs are not Bhoomidhar in possession of property in dispute and a registered sale deed dated 7.5.1963 for Rs. 37,560/- was executed by father of plaintiffs and there is a puccka wall and house also, which is mentioned in the sale deed. On the basis of aforesaid sale deed, defendants are the owners of the property in dispute. Due to some reasons, name in the said property could not be mutated and, therefore, sons of Tahir Hasan after his death has got recorded their names. It has also been stated that after the sale deed they are in possession of the property in dispute. Suit is barred by Sections 34, 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act as well as Section 326 of the Nagar Palika Adhiniyam and Section 331 of the U.P. U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

4. Trial Court after considering the pleadings of parties has framed various issues. Issue No. 1 was framed whether plaintiffs are bhumidhar in possession of the property in dispute as well as whether suit is barred by Section 326 of the Nagar Palika Adhiniyam and Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as well as Sections 34, 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act.

5. On behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiffs in support of their case has produced one Abbas Hussain P.W.-1 and in documentary evidence 9-Ga which is Khasra Nos. 1318 fasli to 1408 fasli, 1401 fasli paper No. 24-ga and 61-Ga as well as Akarpatra 25, 19 Nakal