Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—This is an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiff-appellant, challenging the judgment dated 27.5.1986, whereby plaintiff-appellant’s suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit property has been dismissed.

2. The sole plaintiff-appellant instituted Original Suit No. 45 of 1985 with the allegation that he is owner in possession of the suit property, described by letters A, B, C, D in the plaint map. Right over the suit property was claimed on the basis of two lease/(pattas) executed by Gaon Sabha of the same date i.e. 21st April, 1972. Paper No. 10C-1 is the first lease for residential purpose, executed for consideration of Rs. 85, whereas the other lease is Paper No. 10C-2, executed for setting up a flour mill. Both the leases were upon plot No. 150, situated in village Raghunath Pur, and were of 250 sq. yard each. The boundaries of suit property were specified in plaint. The plaintiff-appellant alleged that towards west of suit property situated Khasra No. 149, which belonged to defendant Tularam and was acquired for the benefit of Noida Authority, over which a road is already constructed. In para 5 of the plaint, an averment is made that there were certain old constructions, which had fallen, and plaintiff-appellant was re-constructing it upon his land, but the defendants-respondents without any authority of law started interfering in raising of such construction of shops, resulting in filing of the instant suit.

3. A written statement was filed denying the plaint allegations. In the additional statement, the defendants-respondents pleaded that plaintiff-appellant has no right over the suit land and it did not form part of the land allotted to him. According to the defendants-respondents, the suit property belonged to them. So far as allotment of two plots in favour of plaintiff-appellant of 250 sq. yard each is concerned, it was not disputed, but with reference to the boundary set out in the lease it is stated that plaintiff-appellant is already in possession of it, and constructions have already been raised over it by the plaintiff-appellant. It was stated that land adjoining such allotted land belonging to defendants-respondents is now sought to be encroached upon by the plaintiff-appellant, misrepresenting it to be the land allotted. Boundaries of the plot as given in the lease and in plaint are relied upon by the defendants to contend that the plaintiff-appellant is claiming right over land in addition to what was allotted to him. Submissions were also raised that Gaon Sabha has not been impleaded, although it was a necessary party, and that suit is liable to fail. Further plea was taken that suit is barred by virtue of Section 34 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act. Plaintiff-appellant and defendants-respondents in support of their respective cases have led oral and documentary evidence.

4. Trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed following issues :

“1. Whether the suit is under valued and the Court fee paid is insufficient?

1-A. Whether the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the disputed property, if so, its affect?

2. Whether the disputed property has been constructed solely by the defendant No. 1 and he is in possession of the same, if so, its affect?

3. Whether the Gram Sabha Chaura Raghunathpur is a necessary party to the present suit, if so, whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties?

4. Whether the suit is barred under Section 34 of the 41 of the Specific Relief Act?”

5. Trial Court on Issue No. 1A and 2 has elaborately considered the evidence brought on record to return a finding that the suit property defined by letters A, B, C, D in the plaint map was not leased out by Gaon Sabha, and that the suit property was the Abadi of the defendants-respondents, over which they are in possession. A further find