Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Both the above second appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 13.11.1987 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar in Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1984 (Ram Prasad v. Pran Sukh and others) and Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1984 (Ram Prasad v. Pran Sukh and others) and these appeals are being decided by a common order.

2. The facts of the case are that two suits namely Original Suit No. 280 of 1981 and 425 of 1981 were filed before the Court below. The Original Suit No. 425 of 1981 was filed by respondent Ram Prasad against the appellant Pran Sukh and others for permanent injunction. The other Original Suit No. 280 of 1981 was filed by the appellant against respondent Ram Prasad for the relief of possession.

3. It may noted that with respect to the suit property, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated and the disputed property was attached and it was directed that both the parties should get declaration of their rights with respect to the land in question from the Civil Court.

4. The case of the plaintiff respondent in Original Suit No. 425 of 1981, which was treated as the leading case, was that he had purchased 9 Biswa of land in question 5 years before the commencement of Chakbandi in the village from one Prabhu Singh, father of the defendant No. 9 Tota Ram. The disputed land i.e. plot No. 175 was given new number 121 during the consolidation proceeding.

5. Further case of the plaintiff respondent Ram Prasad was that after purchase of the land he had entered into possession and constructed an abode over 9 biswa of the land. The plaintiff-respondent was still continuing in possession and there existed a boundary wall over the property in dispute which was constructed by him. He was in actual physical possession of the suit property. The defendant Tota Ram son of Prabhu Singh was never in possession of the property in dispute. Prem Sukh, the defendant No. 1 and Gulab Singh father of defendant Nos. 2 to 8 alleged to have purchased the suit property by a sale-deed executed by defendant No. 9 in their favour and threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff Ram Prasad. As there was apprehension of breach of peace and therefore, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. had commenced and the property was attached. It was given in the possession of the Receiver appointed by the Court.

6. Further the plaintiff’s case was that he was intimate with Prabhu Singh father of Tota Ram and though certain consideration was paid by him to Prabhu Singh, no formal document i.e. sale-deed was executed in his favour. Plaintiff Ram Prasad remained in peaceful continuous possession of the property in dispute for more than 20 years prior to the date of filing of the suit. He took plea of having perfected his title by adverse possession over the suit property for a period of more than 12 years and thus having become owner of the property in question. The sale-deed dated 19.1.1979 executed by Tota Ram Son of Prabhu Singh the defendant No. 9 in favour of Pran Sukh and Gulab Singh was a sheer waste piece of paper and was executed with ulterior motive to dispossess the plaintiff Ram Prasad from the suit property.

7. Appellant Pran Sukh and heirs of Gulab Singh filed suit No. 280 of 1981 and pleaded that they had purchased 36 square yard x 16 square yard area of Plot No. 117 (new No. 121) through sale-deed dated 19.1.1979 and after purchase they had constructed a boundary wall and hut over the disputed property. As per the plaint case of Original Suit No. 280 of 1981, on the southern side of a portion of the property purchased by the appellants Pran Sukh and others, there exists the house of Tota Ram. The trial Court framed various issues after exchange of pleadings. Relevant issues Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 11 are as follows :

(5) Whether the plaintiff is owner of Plot No. 117 Rakba 9 Biswa?

(6) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of Plot No. 117 Rakba 9 Biswa and whether he had