JUDGMENT :

1. This is a defendants' second appeal, arising from a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rajesh Maurya and Mr. Sheo Ram Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Budhiram, the sole plaintiff-respondent, who is now represented by his heirs and LRs before this Court, instituted Original Suit No.627 of 1995 in the ex-Court of Munsif, Mohammadabad Gohna, District Azamgarh against Sahabal and Ninku, arrayed as the defendants first set, for a decree of possession, directing the defendants first set to the suit to deliver possession of a house and underlying land shown by letters v c l n with boundaries detailed at the foot of the plaint. A further decree was sought praying that the defendants first set be directed to pay the plaintiff mesne profits at the rate of Rs.20/-per month w.e.f. 10.05.1985 till date of delivery of actual physical possession of the suit property.

4. The plaintiff arrayed his brothers, Muktinath and Dhuppu as defendants second set or proforma defendants to the suit, for whose benefit also he instituted the suit. Later on, by an amendment to the plaint, Mahavir, a brother of Ninku, was impleaded as defendant no.5/defendant third set, against whom also relief was claimed to the same effect as the defendants first set.

5. In this appeal, the defendants first set and third set, that is to say, Sahabal, Ninku and Mahavir are the appellants. All three of them had together instituted the present appeal before this Court, but pending appeal they have passed away. They are represented on record by their heirs and LRs, duly substituted. All the three defendants-appellants, that is to say, the original defendants first and third sets to the suit, now represented by theirs heirs and LRs, shall hereinafter be referred to as the defendants, wherever the reference is made collectively. In case of an individual reference to any of the original defendant-appellant, the concerned party would be referred to by his name.

6. Budhiram, the plaintiff, who had instituted the suit, is arrayed to the appeal as the plaintiff-respondent no.1. He has passed away pending appeal and is represented on record by his heirs and LRs. Likewise, the two brothers of Budhiram, to wit, Muktinath and Dhuppu, who were arrayed in the suit as defendants second set in a proforma capacity, have also passed away pending appeal. They too are represented on record by their heirs and LRs. Budhiram, represented by his heirs and LRs, shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff. Muktinath and Dhuppu, who were the defendants second set or the proforma defendants to the suit, now represented by their heirs and LRs, shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as the proforma defendants. Both the plaintiff and the proforma defendants would be referred to individually by their names, wherever the context necessitates.

7. According to the plaintiff, Plot No. 276 (formerly numbered as 531) situate at Village Lado, Tappa Badokhar, Pargana and Tehsil Sagri, District Azamgarh was held as a bhumidhari by Basanta, the plaintiff’s and the proforma defendants’ father. Five years prior to the institution of the suit, Basanta passed away. After his death, the plaintiff and the proforma defendants succeeded to his rights as bhumidhar of the plot aforesaid. They are bhumidhar in possession of Plot No. 276 (for short “the plot in question”) ever since.

8. It is the plaintiff's case that the plaintiff and the proforma defendants live way far off from the plot in question and, therefore, for ease of farming and supervision of crops, they built a temporary shelter, described in vernacular as Madai. The site of this temporary construction is denoted in the map at the foot of the plaint by letters v c l n. It is then said that about two and a half years ante-dating the institu