Point of law:
Question of law framed by the High Court while deciding the second appeal, cannot be said to be substantial questions of law at all.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This is a defendants' Second Appeal from a decree of possession passed by the Lower Appellate Court, reversing the Trial Court.

2. Nanu Singh brought Original Suit No. 101 of 1971 against Bhupeshwar Prasad, Rajeshwar Prasad, Ishwar Prasad, Rameshwar Prasad, all sons of late Hari Kishan Das and Smt. Shashi Prabha, daughter of late Hari Kishan Das for possession of land, part of Khasra no. 113, situate at Mauza Khan Alampur, Saharanpur, as detailed and bounded at the foot of the plaint. The Suit was instituted on 27.01.1971. Pending Suit, the Appeal from the Original Decree and the present Appeal, the plaintiffs have grown to a figure of nine on account of exiting this mortal world. The defendants, likewise, who were five before the Trial Court, have grown to a figure of eighteen, with legal representatives being substituted for the deceased defendants, pendente lite.

3. Sri Shamsher Bahadur Singh, the then Munsif City, Saharanpur, who tried the Suit, dismissed it with costs by his judgment and decree dated 11.07.1989. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge, Saharanpur, where the Appeal was registered on the file of the learned District Judge as Civil Appeal no. 70 of 1989. The Appeal on assignment came up for determination before Sri Naresh Kumar Bahal, the then IVth Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur on 26.03.1993. The learned Additional Civil Judge by his judgment and decree of the date last mentioned, allowed the Appeal with costs, set aside and reversed the decree of the learned Munsif, ordering the Suit to be decreed with costs. It is ordered by the Appellate Decree that the defendants shall hand over the plaintiffs possession of the suit property within a month of the judgment.

4. Aggrieved, the defendants have brought this Second Appeal.

5. To clarify reference to parties in this judgment, the plaintiff-respondents, who are now nine in number, all heirs and legal representatives of the original and sole plaintiff, Nanu Singh, shall be hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff'. The defendant-appellants, multiple in number, as they are from the institution of the Suit, shall be hereinafter referred to as the defendants.

6. The Suit was brought on facts that the suit property is part of Khasra no. 113, formally numbered as Khasra no. 126, part of Mahaal Asha Ram, situate at Village Khan Alampura, Saharanpur, of which the plaintiff is owner in possession. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. The suit property, that is part of Khasra no. 113, has been detailed at the foot of the plaint. Towards the East of Khasra no. 113, there is a house (kothi) and quarters located in Khasra no. 111, that are the defendants' ownership. Also, a Mosque and Madarsa annexed to the Mosque Shahjahani, besides a Temple (Mandir) etc. are also located in Khasra no. 111. The suit property lies within the local limits of Municipal Board, Saharanpur, which is in possession of the plaintiff since 20 years past. The plaintiff has planted and nurtured two trees over the suit property, a Bel and another Barna, the fruits and shade whereof the plaintiff utilises to his benefit. The plaintiff also utilises the suit property for the purposes of processing his dung based fuel (Uple), stacking firewood and manure, besides using it to bask in the Sun and tether cattle. The plaintiff also exploits the suit property for agriculture, which is a part of the plaintiff's Khasra no. 113.

7. The defendants since a long time have been harassing and troubling the plaintiff. To the West of the defendants' Kothi and quarters, there is no land in the title and possession of the defendants, or do they have any drain, window, ventilator or door opening into the suit property. The defendants never had or have any connection or possession of the suit property since 12 years past.

8. It is then pleaded by the plai