JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Mohammad Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mohammad Aslam Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants-appellants and Sri Girish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents.

2. By means of the present appeal preferred by the defendants-appellants under section 100 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"), the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2022, passed by the District Judge, Sultanpur in Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2018 [Dildar Gani And Another v. Ratan Kumar (now deceased) through LRs and others] as also the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2017, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Musafirkhana, Sultanpur in Regular Suit No. 435 of 1986 (Gaya Prasad and others v. Dildar Gani And Another).

3. Vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.2017, the suit filed by one Gaya Prasad against the present appellants was decreed and being aggrieved, the Regular Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2018 was filed, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2022 affirming the judgment of the trial Court.

4. Admittedly, the Regular Suit No. 435 of 1986 was filed against the defendants-appellants indicating therein that the defendant No. 1-appellant No. 1 (Dildar Gani) is the tenant of the shop Nos. 1 and 2 at Rs. 8/- per month situated in the area indicated in the plaint as "Aa, Ba, Sa, Da, Ya, Ra, La and Va" and defendant No. 2 (Usman Gani) is real brother of appellant No. 1 and he is with appellant No. 1. As per plaint case, the area described in the suit is the property situated at Village Palpur, Pargana, Jagdishpur, Tehsil-Musafirkhana, District-Sultanpur over Plot No. 390 indicated as "Aa, Ba, Sa, Da, Ya, Ra, La and Va".

5. In regard to ownership, as per averments made in the plaint, the area indicated as "Aa, Ba, Sa, Da, Ya, Ra, La and Va" in the plaint as also in the map appended to the plaint came into possession on account of the permission/Izajatnama provided by one Lala Goverdhan Dass, the then Jamindar and after coming into force the U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950 particularly from the date of its vesting, the predecessor in interest became the owner in possession of the property in issue and on account of family settlement, the plaintiff (Gaya Prasad) became the owner of the same. From the copy of plaint, on record, particularly a conjoint reading of paras 6 to 9 as also the prayer clause, it is apparent that broadly on the ground raising illegal construction and damaging the property, in issue, a registered notice dated 03.06.1986 was sent and thereafter, the suit was filed in the month of July, 1986, seeking prayer(s) for eviction, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. The prayers sought in the plaint are as under:-

^^v- fMxzh rf[y;k; cgd iwoZ oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k ckcr fookfnr nqdku iznku dh tk;sA

c& fMxzh esuMsV~h batD'ku cgd iwoZ oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k bl vk'k; dh iznku dh tk;s dh izfroknhx.k dk vkns'k fn;k tk;s dh ;s U;k;ky; ds fu;qDr le; ds vUnj fookfnr fuekZ.k v] c] l] n dks gVk dj tehu dks ikd o lkQ djds r[rk tehu dks gokys oknh dj ns;s vkSj ;fn os ,slk u djs rks iwoZ oknh ds [kpZ ls U;k;ky; }kjk djk dj mldk Hkh [kpkZ iwoZ oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;sA

l& tfj;s fMxzh gqdqe bfErukbZ nokeh cgd iwoZ oknhx.k izfroknhx.k dks ges'kk ges'kk ds fy, jksd fn;k tk;s dh os fookfnr tk;nkn esa dksbZ gLr{ksi u djsa u dksbZ rkehj djsaA

n& [kpkZ eqdnek iwoZ oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;sA

;& vU; ;kpuk tks fey ldrh gks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;sA**

6. It would be appropriate to refer