IMPORTANT POINT
Adverse possession cannot be claimed without acknowledging the true owner's title, and possession alone does not confer ownership rights without the requisite legal basis.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Sri Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Nand Kishore, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant second appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1988, passed in Civil Appeal No.525 of 1982; Gaya Prasad and 3 others versus Ram Bux by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Faizabad and direct the respondent to not interfere into the possession of the appellants.

3. The following substantial questions of law have been formulated by the court in the second appeal:-

“(i) Whether the suit could be decreed only on the basis of adverse possession when plaintiff was found to have no title or have been in adverse possession?

(ii) Whether the findings of the learned trial court are without consideration of evidence and perverse?”

4. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the plaint, by the respondent who had filed the Regular Suit No.79 of 1981(Ram Bux versus Gaya Prasad and others) is that the parties are resident of Village Sidhaura, Sahijauna, Tehsil Bikapur, District Faizabad. The land in dispute marked by letters Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha in the plaint map belongs to the plaintiff i.e. the respondent in this appeal(hereinafter referred to as the respondent). The land was in possession of the respondent since before the abolition of Zamindari and thereafter after abolition of Zamindari, it was settled with him under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950). The respondent used to tie his cattle and keep house hold articles in the said land and has also planted some trees like Ber, Neer, Chilbil etc. The appellants, who were defendants in the aforesaid suit(hereinafter referred to as the appellants), had no concern with the land in dispute. Since there is a pond towards south and west of the house of the respondent, he has shortage of sahan land near his house, therefore he was using the land in dispute for the aforesaid purpose. The plea was also taken that the respondent has matured his title over the land in dispute by way of adverse possession. The appellants, Lakshmi Prasad and Gaya Prasad have their ancestral house in the village in old abadi and about three years back to the filing of the suit, Gaya Prasad had forcibly constructed a house near the disputed land and about 8-10 days back of filing of the suit raised new construction marked by letters Ka, Kha, Pa, Pha in the plaint map, whereas there was no opening towards west in the house of the appellant no.1 situated near the land in dispute. It has also been averred that there is nali in the land in dispute which is being used by the respondent for irrigating his field situated towards south of the land in dispute from the pond on the north side of the land in dispute. The appellants had threatened to dispossess the respondent from the remaining land also marked by letters Pa, Pha, Ba, Bha in the plaint map. Therefore the respondent filed suit for permanent injunction with a prayer for restraining the appellants from interfering with his ownership and possession over the land in dispute and demolition of incomplete new construction. During pendency of the suit, the appellants completed the constructions Ka, Kha, Pa, Pha and cut one tree of Ber, one tree of Chilbil and two trees of Neem belonging to the respondent worth Rs.1500/-. The respondent amended the plaint and sought the relief of demolition of the disputed construction marked by letters Ka, Kha, Pa, Pha.

5. The respondents contested the case before the trial court by filing the written statement and claiming that they are the owners and in possession of the land in dispute since before the abolition of zamindari, therefore they have become the owners of it after abolition of zamindari. The house of the respondent is situated towards north of the land in dispute at a distance and the land in dispute is not appurtenant to his house, therefore it