JUDGMENT

K.S. Varma, J. - This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit filed by him for possession over plots Nos. 105 and 106 by demolition of certain constructions made by the defendants. The suit was dismissed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 18-10-1965. The plaintiff aggrieved by the said decree has filed the present appeal.

2. A close scrutiny of the case discloses that on the 7th Dec. 1931 one Kunwar Bahadur Singh who was an intermediary of village Bhilawan, Tahsil and District Lucknow granted a lease-Theka in respect of plots Nos. 105 and 106 for 99 years in favour of one Sheo Dutt Rai. This lease-Theka was effected by a registered deed. Subsequently, by registered deed dated 15-1-1946 Sheo Dutt Rai transferred all his rights held by him under the deed of lease dated 7-12-1931 in favour of the plaintiff and one Onkar Mall on an annual rent of Rs. 70/- and by another registered deed dated 4-6-1948 Onkar Mall relinquished all his rights in favour of the plaintiff who thereupon became entitled to all rights covered by the deed of lease dated 7-12-1931 referred to in para 1 of the plaint. The plaintiffs case is that defendants 1 and 2 taking advantage of the plaintiffs absence from the village wrongfully and illegally put up certain constructions over a small portion of plot No. 105 without plaintiffs knowledge or consent. The plaintiff requested the defendants to remove the structures but they did not do so. In the plaint. the plaintiff has impleaded defendants 1 and 2 as those persons who have made constructions and other persons have been impleaded as those who helped the defendants in making constructions. According to the plaintiff, cause of action for the suit arose in July, 1948. The suit was, however, filed by the plaintiff in the court of Munsif which was returned to the court of the Civil Judge and there the suit was registered as Regular Suit No. 44 of 1960.

3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 alone. It was contended in the written statement that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor Sheo Dutt Rai were in possession of the property in suit and that the transfers mentioned in para 2 of the plaint are all fictitious. It is also contended that the defendant No. 1 acquired plots 105 and 106 from the Zarnindar of village Bhilawan for building purposes. The defendant also contended that he has become owner of the plots and the constructions thereon in view of S. 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and, at any rate, claimed rights under S. 60 of the Indian Easements Act. It was also contended that the defendant had acquired rights by adverse possession.

3A. On the above pleadings a number of issues were framed. They are as follows :-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is the lessee of the land in suit?

2. Whether the suit is within time?

3. Whether defendant No. 1 acquired any right in the land in suit under section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act?

4. Whether defendant No. 1 has put up any permanent construction on the land in suit, if so, has he acquired any right under section 60 of the Indian Easements Act?

5. Whether defendant No. 1 has acquired any title to the land in suit by adverse possession?

6. Whether the suit is barred by estoppel and acquiscence?

7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties or causes of action?

8. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled."

The lower appellate Court while recording his findings on issues 1, 2, 3 and 5 held that Kunwar Bahadur Singh was the owner and Zamindar of the plots in dispute and granted a lease-Theka of plots in favour of Sheo Dutt Rai for a period of 99 years at Rs. 50/- per annum as rent under the registered deed dated 7-12-1931. This document is Ext. 13. It has also been found by the court below that Sheo Dutt Rai executed the deed Ext. 11 and thereby transferred all the rights that he had in favour of the plaintiff and one Onkar Mal. The court by reference to Ext. 12 has also held that Onka