Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is a defendant’s appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”) which has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 17.10.1986 passed by Sri C.N. Singh, Additional Civil Judge Second, Jaunpur in Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1981, whereby it has allowed appeal and set aside judgment and decree dated 7.3.1981 passed by Sri Virendra Kumar Khare, Munsif City, Jaunpur, dismissing Original Suit No. 313 of 1976. The Lower Appellate Court has decreed the suit by reversing decree of Trial Court.

2. The appeal was admitted on the following two substantial questions of law:

“(I) Whether Court below erred in relying on sale-deed of 1973 which was executed by Zamindar as alleged by plaintiff when he had no rights left to him due to abolition of Zamindari?

(II) Whether findings recorded by Court below against defendant that he was licensee of plaintiff is perverse, there being no legal evidence worth the name in this finding?”

3. The plaintiffs, Rajpat, Nanhku and Manku sons of Sahdeo, instituted Original Suit No. 313 of 1976 for ejectment of defendant-appellant from disputed premises constituting a Dalan and Madaha, detailed in the map appended to plaint as ‘D’ and ‘CH’, respectively.

4. The plaint case is that plaintiffs are owners of Dalan, Madaha and trees existing on plot No. 41 which also comprised of a Sahan. Plot No. 41 was acquired by plaintiffs through registered sale-deed dated 10.1.1973 executed by Sri Ram Iqbal Singh, Zamindar. Defendants, Kalkatti son of Kariya and Banshraj son of Kalkatti were Washerman and had no place for residence. Plaintiffs and other villagers used to have their clothes washed by defendant and with permission of villagers, defendants were residing in village. In January, 1973, for 2-3 years defendants sought permission to reside in Dalan and Madaha at plot No. 41 with assurance that whenever required they would vacate the same. Plaintiffs permitted them and their capacity to stay in disputed premises was that of a licensee. After two years plaintiffs requested defendants to vacate premises which was denied, hence the suit.

5. Defendants-appellant contested suit stating that plaintiffs and defendants both are in possession of disputed premises but disputed Dalan and Madaha was in possession of defendants. Defendant 1 is resident of Village Katahari, Tahsil Kirakat, District Jaunpur and by occupation a Washerman. About 40-41 years back defendant 1 came to Village Biswa where there was no Washerman and stayed thereat. On the request of villagers, the then Zamindar permitted defendant 1 to occupy disputed premises and since then he is residing and in possession of disputed premises. His possession of disputed premises is much prior to enforcement of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1950”), i.e., before abolition of Zamindari. The suit is barred by non-impleadment of necessary parties, limitation and also Sections 38 and 41 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1963”). The suit is liable to be dismissed for want of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1882”).

6. Trial Court formulated nine issues as under:

^^1- D;k oknhx.k fookfnr Hkwfe ,oa fuekZ.k ds ekfyd gSa\

1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the disputed land and construction?

2- D;k okn izfroknh uacj&1 dh iRuh ,oa cPpksa ds vla;kstu ls nks"kiw.kZ gS\

2. Whether the suit suffers from non-joinder of wife and children of defendant No. 1?

3- D;k okn dk ewY;kadu de gS vkSj U;k;'kqYd vi;kZIr vnk fd;k x;k gS\

3. Whether the suit is undervalued and the Court fee is underpaid?

4- D;k okn dkyckf/kr gS\

4. Whether the suit is time-barred?

5- D;k okn /kkjk 38@41 fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS\

5. Whether the suit is barred by Section 38/41 of Specific Relief Act?

6- D;k okn /kkjk 106 lEifRr LFkkukUrj.k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr