The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to decide cross-objections along with the appeal, as provided under Rule 22 of Order XLI of the C.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.

Heard Sri Mehndi Abbas Rizwi, Advocate holding brief of Sri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By this common judgment, I will decide Second Appeal No.339 of 2004 filed by the appellant/plaintiff and Cross Objection No.1 of 2005 filed by the respondents/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2014 passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Faizabad, as both are against the judgment dated 03.08.2004, both are between the same parties and involve similar question of law.

3. The brief facts of the present case are that the appellant, Bansi Dhar Shukla (who was plaintiff in the original suit) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents bearing Original Suit No.269 of 1982. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the land situated in plot No.42/2, Village Ranopali was taken on lease by him from Raja Jagdish Prtap Shahi, Sarbarahkar of the temple Sri Thakur Raj Rajeshwari Sri Sitaram Ji Virajman Mandir Diyara, Post Diyara, Pargana Aldemau, District Sultanpur vide lease deed dated 03.11.1981 and the same was got registered on 18.02.1982, the same is shown in the site plan filed along the plaint. The respondents/defendants tried to interfere in the peaceful possession of the appellant. Hence, the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants.

4. Respondents/Defendants No.1 and 3 contested the suit by filing written statement. Defendants No.1 and 3 denied the allegations made in the plaint. It was stated that defendant No.3 is owner of land bearing No.42 area 13 dhur and land bearing No.41; land No.42 admeasuring 13 dhur is situated in the eastern part of the disputed land; Sri Anjani Kumar Sinha was the tenant farmer of land bearing No.41 and 42/1, after abolition of Zamindari in the year 1963, he became sirdar of the same and later on acquired bhoomidhari rights; later on the said land was purchased by Ann Purna Devi; Ann Purna Devi sold the said land to defendant No.3. It was also stated that the lands bearing No.41 and 42/1 were purchased by defendants No.1 and 2; the remaining land of 42 admeasuring 13 dhur is abadi land and houses have been constructed thereon. It was denied that the appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the disputed land and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Respondent No.2 filed a separate written statement and denied the allegations made in the plaint. Defendant No.2 stated that Kalyani Devi was bhoomidhar of lands bearing No.41 and 42 area 13 dhur and she had sold apart from it to defendant No.2 on 06.06.1981. Defendant No.2 stated that she is in possession of the disputed land.

6. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial court:-

^^1- D;k oknh okni= ds dFkkuqlkj Á’uxr lEifRr dk lkf/kiR; Lokeh gS \

2- D;k okn oknh ds dCts+ ds vHkko esa fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS \ tSlk fd Áfrokn i= dh /kkjk 17 esa vafdr gS \

3- D;k okn dk ewY;kadu de gS rFkk ÁnRr U;k;’kqYd vi;kZIr gS \

4- D;k oknh fdlh mi’ke ds ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \

5- D;k okni= esa okndkj.k mRiUu gksus dh fofufnZ”V frfFk vafdr u gksus ds dkj.k okn nks”kiw.kZ gS\

6- D;k Áfrokn i= ds vfHkdFku ds vuqlkj Bkdqj th dk efUnj lkoZtfud gS\ ;fn gkWa rks ÁHkko\

7- D;k okni= esa dfFkr iV~Vk fof/k fo:/n gS \ vkSj fcuk l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vuqefr ds tkjh gqvk gS\ ;fn gkWa rks ÁHkko\

7. In support of his case, the appellant/plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Sri Uttam Kumar Pandey as PW-2. The respondents examined Sri Ravi Kumar Gaur as DW-1, Sri Prem Prakash as DW-2, Sri Ram Shukla as DW-3, Sri Kamla Kant as DW-4, Sri Jai Narayan Pal as DW-5 and Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava as DW-5.

8. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the suit of the appellant was dismissed by learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faizabad vide judgment and decree dated 26.05.2000. Against the said judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintiff filed a C