Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G.S. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted Original Suit No. 139 of 1988 seeking permanent injunction against defendants-appellants from interfering in possession of plaintiff on Abadi Plot No. 262 situate at Mauja Sitapur, Tehsil Karvi, District Banda, boundary whereof is shown in the bottom of plaint. He also sought injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from raising any construction, temporary or permanent, or otherwise cause hindrance in peaceful possession of plaintiff. He further sought a direction to defendants-appellants that wall which has been illegally constructed by them during pendency of suit on Plot No. 262, should be removed taking away Malba from the aforesaid plot.

3. The defendants-appellants contested suit and besides other they raised a plea that property in dispute belong to Thakur Balaji Maharaj Virajman Akhada, Rambag, District Chitrakoot, a religious endowment and the said property could not have been transferred to anyone without seeking permission of Commissioner under Section 7 of U.P. Hindu Religious Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1962”) since the valuation of property is more than Rs. 50,000/- and its annual income is more than Rs. 1200/-. The defendants-appellants also pleaded that disputed property actually is Khasra No. 265 and not 262, in respect whereto there is already a decree of Court in their favour and no injunction, therefore, can be granted. Besides above, they also pleaded that they are in possession of property in dispute since several decades and, therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The Trial Court formulated six issues as under:

^^1- D;k oknh fookfnr Hkwfe dk Lokeh vfèkiR; gS\

2- D;k okn focU/ku ds fl)kUr ls ckf/kr gS\

3- D;k okn esa vko’;d i{kksa ds i{kdkj u cuk;s tkus ,oa vuko’;d i{kksa dks i{kdkj cuk;s tkus dk nks"k gS\

4- D;k okn /kkjk 34 ,oa 41 fof’k"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS\

5- D;k okn dk ewY;kadu ,oa iznRr U;k; 'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\

6- vuqrks"k ftldh izkfIr dk oknh vfèkdkjh gS\**

“1. Whether the plaintiff is the landlord with possession over the disputed land?

2. Whether the suit is barred by the doctrine of estoppel?

3. Whether the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and joinder of unnecessary parties?

4. Whether the suit is barred by Sections 34 and 41 of Specific Relief Act?

5. Whether the valuation of suit as also the Court fees paid is insufficient?

6. Relief the plaintiff is entitled to?” (English translation by the Court)

5. It was held that disputed property is Plot No. 262 and owned by Thakur Balaji Maharaj Virajman, a regligious endowment. None of the parties raised any dispute that it is not a public trust and, therefore, Act, 1962 has no application to the said property. It is in these circumstances and looking to the fact that plaintiff did neither plead nor adduce any evidence to show that any prior permission of Commissioner under Section 7 of Act, 1962 was obtained, the Court held that property could not have been transferred to plaintiff-respondent without complying with Section 7 of Act, 1962 and lease claimed to have been executed in violation of aforesaid provision would confer no right upon plaintiff-respondent in respect to such property. With respect to allegation of construction on Plot No. 262, the Trial Court found that Court Commissioner’s report, i.e., Paper No. 70-C, shows that there was no construction made on Plot No. 262. The Court also found that plaintiff could not show that he had possession on the property in dispute and that being so, vide judgment dated 20.11.2000, the suit was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved thereto the plaintiff-respondent preferred Appeal No. 56 of 2000 which has been allowed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Chitrakoot. With respect to identity of plot, a