IMPORTANT POINT
Title in immovable property cannot vest through mere admission or affidavit without statutory backing, and unlawful actions amount to trespass.

JUDGMENT :

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

THE APPEAL

1. This is defendants’ second appeal arising out of non-concurrent judgments. The Original Suit No. 307 of 2011 (Bhola vs. DIOCESE and another) was dismissed by the trial court, however, the Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff-respondents has been allowed by the First Appellate Court and, consequently, the suit has been decreed.

PLAINT CASE

2. The aforesaid suit was filed stating that the plaintiff was Bhumidhar in possession over plot No. 26 measuring 93 decimals situated at Mauza Jangal Salikram, District Gorakhpur. A statement No. 3234 filed by him before the Competent Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was pending and when the defendants, 1.5 months prior to institution of suit, started en-covering the land by raising constructions of boundary wall and the plaintiff objected to the same, the defendants threatened him to raise constructions of a hospital over the land. It was alleged through amendment that a lease deed was said to have been executed by defendant No. 2, (State of U.P.) in favour of defendant No. 1 (appellant herein), though the State had no right to execute a lease. Further pleading was that the land of the plaintiff had not been declared vacant and, consequently, a decree was prayed for directing the defendants to remove constructions raised over the portion marked by letters ^^v c l n** in the plaint map and deliver possession of the land to the plaintiff and, on their failure to do so, possession through process of the Court be delivered and the lease deed be also cancelled. Further, a decree restraining the respondents from raising any constructions over the land bearing No. 26 measuring 93 decimals was also claimed.

IMPLEADMENT OF PARTIES AND AMENDMENT IN PLAINT

3. The Original Suit was initially filed against the DIOCESE of Gorakhpur, i.e. the present appellant only. The plaint was, later on, amended and averments were added based upon the lease deed filed by the defendant-appellant before the trial court asserting rights in the land in dispute in its favour. Pursuant to an order dated 19.02.2001, State of Uttar Pradesh through District Magistrate, Gorakhpur was impleaded as defendant No. 2. The relief No. v was amended incorporating a prayer for cancellation of the lease deed too.

DEFENCE IN WRITTEN STATEMENT

4. The defendant No. 1 (appellant) filed a written statement taking a stand that it was a registered Society and under a proposal to construct Fatima Hospital in Gorakhpur, land was required by it. On the request of the said defendant, the State officials allotted a vacant land to the appellant under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (herein-after referred to as “the Act of 1976”) and over the said land, possession was delivered to appellant. The appellant also filed additional written statement stating therein facts regarding execution of lease in its favour by the State Government. The State of U.P., (defendant No. 2) also filed written statement stating that the plaintiff had submitted an application dated 05.02.1991 alongwith notarized affidavit dated 21.02.1991 to the effect that he had sold the entire property covered by land No. 197, which had been declared as vacant under section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 and, in exchange thereof, an area measuring 2805.90 Sq.Mts. covered by land bearing No. 26 was handed over by the plaintiff to the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and, on the basis of such written consent of the plaintiff, the State Government had allotted the land to the appellant. It was further pleaded that after coming into force of Repeal Act No. 15 of 1999, the proceedings under the Act of 1976 had stood abated and a registered lease deed having already been executed in favour of appellant, the construction of boundary wall raised over the land was lawful.

TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT

5. The trial court framed 15 issues out of which relevant issues relate to right, title, interest and p