Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—This matter has come before this Court on transfer. The order sheet reveals that after calling for the record of the Court below, the matter was heard at length by another bench and, thereafter, it was released by order dated 22.1.2013. Both the learned counsel have agreed that as the record of the Court below is available, the matter be finally heard and decided even though the appeal has been listed under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. This is a plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Bulandshahr in Civil Appeal No. 96 of 2005, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Original Suit No. 78 of 2001 has been set aside and the plaintiffs’ suit has been dismissed.

4. Original Suit No. 78 of 2001 was instituted by the appellants for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over a piece of land shown by letters Aa, Ba, Sa, Da in the plaint map.

5. The plaint case is that the village Abadi has been in existence over plot Nos. 1530, 1532 and 1529 since prior to the abolition of zamindari and, therefore, by operation of law the housing site stood vested in the house owners under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari & Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as U.P. ZA & LR Act). It is the case of the plaintiffs that their ancestral house stood over plot No. 1532 which has since been destroyed leaving a boundary wall and a door, which still remains and shown in the plaint map as Aa, Ba, Ya, Ra. It is claimed that the plaintiffs have been using the same as their “Gher” for tying cattle and keeping cart, etc. It is the case of the plaintiffs that as their residential portion stood destroyed with the passage of time, the plaintiff No. 2 (Sunehari Devi) purchased 7 biswa, 18 biswansi of plot No. 1534, which is contiguous to plot No. 1532, from Smt. Nanhi Devi, vide sale-deed dated 12.10.1973, and built house over plot No. 1529 as also over a portion of plot No. 1534, whereas the remaining land in front of the house remains vacant for use as “Sehan” as well as for business during “Navratri”. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that on 1.6.1999 a notice was issued to them by a three member committee of the Gaon Sabha requiring the plaintiffs to remove their alleged illegal possession from over plot No. 1532 by claiming the same to be a Gaon Sabha property. It is their case that a reply was given to the said notice but, thereafter, no action was taken pursuant to the notice. It has further been alleged that the defendants got a fictitious sale-deed executed in their favour from one Mahaveer Prasad without disclosing plot number and by disclosing incorrect boundaries. It has been alleged that the defendants were seeking to illegally demolish the boundary wall and get possession of the disputed land, hence, the suit.

6. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement thereby denying the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs. It was claimed that the boundaries of the disputed land were incorrectly stated in the plaint. The defendants claimed title and possession over the disputed land under a sale-deed dated 13.11.1999 executed by Mahaveer Prasad son of late Babu Ram. It was claimed that the disputed land was the ancestral property of Mahaveer Prasad, which he obtained in partition from his brothers. It was alleged that in respect of the disputed land there was an Original Suit No. 979 of 1997: Raghuveer Prasad v. Mahaveer Prasad, in which Mahaveer Prasad was declared owner. It has also been stated that the plaintiffs had applied for impleadment in the said suit, which was rejected. It was claimed that the alleged notice of the Gaon Sabha requiring the plaintiffs to remove their possession from over the disputed land was forged and fabricated. In support of