ORDER :

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri R.P.Tewari, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Ganesh Datt Mishra, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.

2. This is defendant's appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure arising from judgment and decree dated 11.9.1980 passed by Sri Jay Prakash Narayan, Civil Judge, Etawah in Civil Appeal No.479 of 1976 whereby appeal has been allowed and judgment and decree dated 19.04.1976 passed by Sri Shyam Lal Gapna, Vth Additional Munsiff, Etawah, has been set aside.

3. Sole plaintiff Shyam, son of Khushal Lodhee, instituted original suit in the Court of Munsiff, Etawah stating that he is resident of Gram Bulakeepur, Luhanna, Pargana and District Etawah. Land measuring area 0.09 decimal, adjacent to his residential house situated on Arazi No.311, was purchased by him vide receipt dated 28.2.1965 for consideration of Rs.300/-and since then he is in possession of said land. Plaintiff is tying his cattle and has also raised a hut besides standing trees of Neem etc. It is surrounded by barbed wire. The other part of plot no.311 was in the use of Mullu son of Chakori, Kanhai and Ram Sanehi, sons of Chotte Lal, who have taken the same from Suraj Sahai, defendant 2 and being used for their residence and Sahan. Defendant 2 has sole Arazi no.311 (M) area 0.45 decimal. Area of plot 311 M, in the use of plaintiff is, 68 Haath x 23 Haath. Defendants have no connection with aforesaid land of plaintiff. About a month back, defendants, who have organized gang, with intention to forcibly occupy land, in possession of plaintiff, threatened him. Hence the suit seeking injunction restraining defendant from interfering in possession of plaintiff in respect of land shown as 'A' 'B' 'C' 'D' at the bottom of the plaint, vide plaint dated 26.9.1974 was instituted.

4. Defendant 1 filed written statement stating that plaintiff owns no part of Arazi no.311 as there is no sale by erstwhile owner of said land. Defendant 2, who earlier owned entire land in Arazi no.311, had not sold any part of land to plaintiff and receipt relied by plaintiff is forged and fictitious. Plaintiff has no possession over any part of Arazi no. 311 and neither there is any construction nor plaintiff tied his cattle nor there is Neem tree or hut thereon, as pleaded in the plaint. Defendant 2, vide registered sale deed dated 24.8.1974 has sold one-sixth part of arazi no.311 and had given possession to defendant 1. Plaintiff is a mischievous person, set on fire his house and falsely lodged prosecution against defendant. In additional pleas, it was also pleaded that suit is barred by limitation, estoppel, acquiescence etc.

5. Trial Court formulated eight issues as under :

“1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in suit?

2. Whether the alleged receipt confer any title to the plaintiff?

3. Whether Suraj Sahai transferred any land or boundary to plaintiff, if so its effect?

4. Whether suit is barred by Section 34 of the S.R. Act?

5. Whether the suit is time barred?

6. Whether defendant No.2 has perfected his title by adverse possession?

7. Whether the suit is undervalued and the court fee paid is insufficient?

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

6. Issue 1 relating to alleged ownership of plaintiff over land in dispute was answered against him. Issue 2 relates to receipt on which plaintiff founded its case and it was answered holding that aforesaid receipt is not an instrument having effect of transferring title from erstwhile owner to plaintiff. It only shows receipt of Rs.300/-by the person issuing receipt but has no legal consequence so far as title of disputed land is concerned. Issue 3 was also answered against plaintiff holding that transfer of any part of land to plaintiff by defendant 2 is not proved. Issues 4 and 5 were answered in favour of plaintiff. Issue 6 relating to adverse possession was answered against plaintiff. Consequently, Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.1976 dismis