Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Sri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondent even in the revised list.

2. This is defendant’s second appeal directed against the judgment and decree passed by Sri V.D. Dubey, H.J.S., IIIrd Additional District Judge, Agra dated 2.12.1985 passed in Civil Appeal No. 358 of 1978 confirming the decree of the trial Court dated 8.9.1972 passed by Ist Additional Munsif, Agra in Original Suit No. 1100 of 1995.

3. Plaintiff instituted the suit praying for decree of permanent injunction, possession over suit property, alongwith damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 50 per month against the defendants. Money decree for Rs. 1,000/- as damages for building material removed and misappropriated by the defendants for their own use after demolition of the plaintiff’s construction by the defendants was also prayed.

4. The plaintiff’s case is that he was in possession over property in dispute from time of his ancestors for last more than 100 years; that the plaintiff also built several Khaprail Kothas on a portion of the land in suit which are in possession of the tenants and in a portion thereof is chakki of the tenants of the plaintiff; that ancestors of the plaintiffs were recorded tenants in the revenue records and after commencement of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Land and Reforms Act, 1952, the plaintiff became Sirdar thereof in the year 1952 and is at present Bhoomidhar; that the rights of intermediary came to an end after the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Land and Reforms Act came into force; that the defendants-appellants took forcible possession of the suit property and also demolished two Kothas and Sehan and also the boundary wall of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.

5. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the case set up by the plaintiff and claimed adverse possession over the land in suit; that the defendants claimed that the suit is barred by limitation and they have not made any encroachment and unauthorized construction over the suit property. They denied all the claims of the plaintiff and prayed that the suit may be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues :

(1) whether the suit is undervalued and Court fee paid is insufficient?

(2) whether plaintiff is adopted son of Shri Gaya Prasad and he has any right or interest in the property in suit?

(3) whether property in suit belongs to defendant No. 1 to 6 only?

(4) whether defendants are in adverse possession?

(5) whether suit it barred by time?

(6) whether plaintiff is a Sirdar?

(7) whether Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?

(8) whether the description of property are insufficient?

(9) whether suit is barred under Section 11 C.P.C.?

(10) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff is entitled?

(11) Again whether suit is under valued and Court fee paid is insufficient?

(12) whether the plaintiff is entitled to damage? If so, its effect?

(13) whether the property in suit lies in plot No. 507 as alleged by the plaintiff?

7. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants and restrained them from interfering in his possession. Defendants were further directed to remove their constructions from the suit property within two months from the date of decree and hand over peaceful possession to the plaintiff and damage of Rs. 200 was awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court defendants preferred a Civil Appeal No. 358 of 1978 before the lower appellate Court. During the pendency of appeal the defendants filed and application under Order 47, Rule 21, C.P.C. and submitted number of documents to prove that the land in dispute was lis to them by the Zamindar and they constructed the house over the same and their houses are assessed by Nagar Maha Palika, Agra for the purpose of payment of taxes.

9. Lower appellate Court framed the