JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is the defendant’s second appeal against the judgment of reversal passed by the Lower Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2015 whereby the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Sitapur while allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-respondents by means of judgment and decree dated 28.10.2017 has set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court dated 27.05.2015 in Regular Suit No. 74 of 2015 as a result, the suit of the plaintiff stood decreed.

3. The instant second appeal was admitted by a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 06.12.2017 on the following substantial questions of law which are being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference.

"1. Whether the lower appellate court has committed manifest illegality in not making compliance of Order XLI Rule 31 and thereby the judgment impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law?

2. Whether the judgment impugned has been passed by the lower appellate court without reversing findings recorded by the trial court and without establishing the right and title as well as possession of the respondent-plaintiff.?

3. Whether findings recorded by the lower appellate court are totally perverse." ?

4. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court has submitted that the plaintiff-respondents had instituted a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of his possession.

5. It was pleaded that the plaintiff along with his father had come to Biswa, District Sitapur about 30 years ago. On account of family disturbance, he was separated from his family. Since he could not get any house on rent, accordingly, Cleric of the local mosque had permitted the plaintiff to put up a thatched structure and live on an area nearby the local mosque which has been shown by Letters A, B, C in the Site plan annexed as forming part of the suit. With the passage of time, the Nagar Palika had laid a Khadanja and the plaintiff had also raised a boundary wall and had been residing in the aforesaid premises.

6. It was further pleaded that the defendants claimed that they had purchased the property and by using force were attempting to dispossess the plaintiff from the property in question and in the aforesaid backdrop the suit bearing R.S. No. 74 of 1999 seeking a remedy of permanent injunction was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Biswa, District Sitapur.

7. It has further been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the defendants had filed a detailed written statement wherein they had indicated that the property in question initially belonged to one Sri Puttu Son of Lal Mohammad. He had sold the property to Smt. Rafiqa Khatun in the year 1968 and thereafter Smt. Rafiqa Khatun sold the premises to the father of the defendant namely Babu Master. Upon the death of Babu Master, the defendant had inherited the property and has been in its possession since then.

8. Upon the pleadings, the Trial Court framed 5 issues. Issue no. (i) related to the fact whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land in question; (ii) The other relevant issue was whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter; (iii) Whether the suit was barred by virtue of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

9. The parties led their evidence and upon considering the same, the Trial Court while dealing with issue no. 1 specifically found that the plaintiff could not establish his ownership in respect of the property in question. It further held that the plaintiff could also not establish its possession.

10. In view of the aforesaid finding, the suit was dismissed by means of judgment and decree dated 27.05.2015. As far as the issue regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court and whether the suit was maintainable in view of the Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act are concerned, these t