JUDGMENT :

SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 13.5.2016 passed by the District Judge, Ballia, in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2016 which had affirmed the judgement and decree dated 14.3.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Ballia in Original Suit No. 424 of 2007.

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction stating that the defendant (appellant here) may be injuncted from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the land marked by nos. 1-4-5-6-7-1 and by nos. 6-8-9-10 in the plaint map. The case of the plaintiff had been that the area marked by numbers 1-4-5-6-7-1 had formed a part of plot no. 48 which was the plaintiff's sehan land and he had inherited the same from his grand-father, namely, Jamuna Ojha.

3. To bolster his case, the plaintiff had taken support of the papers which were filed in another suit being Suit no. 274 of 1993 which was filed by Vimlesh Chaubey, a person who was not a party to the suit of the plaintiff. Suit No. 274 of 1993 was dismissed by a judgement and decree dated 21.1.1995. The plaintiff of the suit from which the instant appeal has arisen had alleged that on 30.9.2007 the defendants in the instant case had threatened that they would take over possession over the land numbered as 1-4-5-6-7-1 in the plaint map and would also stop the water from flowing from the nali which was running on the land numbered as 6-8-9-10 in the plaint map. The defendants, the appellant here, filed their written statement denying the rights and title of the plaintiff over the land in question and stated that since their houses opened southwards into the land numbered as 6-8-9-10 and since they had a Chabutara over it the plaintiffs could not have any right over the land in question. Upon filing of the suit, an Amin of the Civil Court went on the spot and submitted his report alongwith a map on 28.11.2007. The report was numbered as 19(ga)(2) and the map was numbered as 20(ga) (2). For deciding the suit the Trial Court had framed as many as nine issues.

4. Issue no. 1 was to the effect as to whether the land which was claimed by the plaintiff to be his own land was his or not. Upon giving a finding in favour of the plaintiff in the affirmative the suit was decreed. The defendant filed a first appeal being First Appeal No. 31 of 2016 in which only one point of determination was drawn and that was also to the effect as to whether the plaintiff was the owner in possession over the land in question. The First Appeal was, however, dismissed on 13.5.2016. The instant second appeal when was filed was admitted on 22.12.2016 on the questions of law as had been framed in the memo of appeal. There were 10 questions of law which were framed and the same are being reproduced here as under:-

1. Whether the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent without there being any cause of action, is maintainable?

2. Whether both the courts below committed manifest error of law in decreeing the suit and passing impugned orders by treating the land the land in dispute to be part of land of Shikmi No. 48 without ascertaining correct location and area of Shikmi No. 48?

3. Whether the plaintiff-respondent who stand on his own leg, his suit cannot be decreed on the weakness of defendants-appellants?

4. Whether the paper filed in the suit No. 274 of 1993 in which the defendants-appellants were not party, can be relied in decreeing the suit?

5. Whether the courts-below are justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent without ascertaining the location of Khasra No. 48 where area is given in the Khasra?

6. Whether the courts-below were justified in law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff without establishing his case by any cogent documents/evidence regarding recording the name of Bahuriya Piyari Kunwari even in Khasra on record?

7. Whether both the courts below have committed manifest error of law in not deciding the objections fi