Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—This second appeal arises out of a suit filed for permanent injunction by the plaintiff-respondent, restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering in his possession and from raising of construction over the suit property. Suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 25.2.1982, but has been decreed by the lower appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.1984, passed in Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1982. Being aggrieved, the defendant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of the instant appeal are that plaintiff Chhotai filed suit for permanent injunction with the allegation that his uncle Kalicharan was the occupant of suit property since 1331 Fasli, and upon his death the plaintiff has remained in continuous possession. In the plaint, Chhotai set-out the following family tree to explain his relationship with Kalicharan :

Original plaintiff Chhotai died during pendency of the suit and the proceedings have been carried through his legal representatives.

3. According to the plaint averment, plaintiff’s ancestors for a longtime had remained in possession over the suit property and thereafter plaintiff continued to remain in its possession and that defendant had no concern with the land in suit. It has been asserted that on 9.1.1975 Chhotai started getting the foundation dug for the purposes of constructing a house, which has been objected by the defendant-appellant without any right and title, and as the defendant-appellant was bent upon creating trouble, necessity arose for the plaintiff-respondent to file the suit.

4. Defendant-appellant contested the suit, denying the possession of plaintiff-respondent and of his ancestors over the land in suit. It was claimed by the defendant-appellant that he was tenant of the land in suit till the year 1942 when the possession of it was requisitioned for preparation of bricks in connection with the construction of Madho Singh Aerodrome, during second world war, and consequent upon requisition, defendant’s name was deleted and the name of “Sarkar Bahadur Qaisare Hind” got mutated. It is alleged that the scheme for construction of aerodrome was dropped and the defendant-appellant applied to the military authorities for relinquishing the land in favour of defendant-appellant and that in the year 1946 the military authorities relinquished the suit property in favour of defendant-appellant. Pursuant to such decision taken, the defendant-appellant moved the District Magistrate, Varanasi, for delivery of possession to him and orders for delivery of possession over the land in suit came to be passed, pursuant to which on 16.5.1975 possession of defendant was restored over suit property. An objection was also raised with regard to non-joinder of State as a party to the suit, which according to the defendant-appellant was a necessary party, apart from raising other objections.

5. On the basis of respective pleadings made in the suit, trial Court proceeded to frame following 6 issues for adjudication of dispute :

“1. Whether the ancestors of the plaintiff were in possession over the land in suit and if the plaintiff was in possession over it now?

2. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the land in suit on the basis of his possession?

3. Whether the defendant got possession over the land in suit on 16.5.75?

4. Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of State of U.P.?

5. Whether the suit was undervalue and the Court fee paid was insufficient?

6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?”

6. Trial Court vide its order dated 24.8.1978 decided issue No. 4 by holding that the suit did not suffer from non-joinder of State as a defendant to the suit. Issue No. 5 with regard to valuation was also decided in favour of plaintiff-respo