The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 9 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, in determining ownership and tenancy rights over the disputed property.

This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10-04-1980, passed by the then District Judge, Almora, in civil appeal No. 49 of 1978 (A), whereby the judgment and decree dated 0311-1978, passed by Civil Judge, Almora, in Original Suit No. 03 of 1977 (A), is affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire lower court record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents, filed civil suit No. 03 of 1977 (A), for declaration, arrears of rent and ejectment of defendants. It is pleaded by the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the house in suit, mentioned in the plaint. As per the Schedule A in the plaint, house in suit is situated in plots No. 791, 792, 793 and 794. Its courtyard is in plot No. 788 and 790. Land of plot No. 779, 780, 781, 783, 785, 786 and 787, are part of the house, used as BARA (kitchen garden etc.). Property is situated in Bageshwar (earlier part of District Almora). It is pleaded in the plaint that originally land in suit belonged to one Kifaiatullah, grantee of the State, who transferred land through sale deed to one Chintamani. Plaintiffs purchased the property in suit from Chintamani, who executed sale deed in their favour. Plaintiffs case is that defendant - Bishan Lal Sah, was given the property in suit on rent at the rate of Rs. 64/- per month. It is alleged that he sub-let a portion of the property to Padam Singh (present respondent No.4). As such, the plaintiff after serving notice terminated the tenancy of the defendant/appellant, and instituted a suit in the court of Judge Small Causes Court, where the defendant / appellant raised objection that he had perfected the title over the property in suit by virtue of adverse possession. On this, plaint of plaintiff was returned by the Judge Small Causes Court, for presentation before the competent court. Thereafter suit No.03 of 1977 (A), was instituted before the civil court.

4. Defendant/appellant Bishan Lal Sah, contested the suit before the trial court and claimed the title over the property in suit. It is specifically pleaded by the defendant/appellant that he has become bhumidhar of plots No. 779, 780, 782, 783, 785, 786, and 787, under provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as he was a Sirtan of these plots on the date of vesting of the land on the State. With regard to the house, shop, chowk, verandah, kitchen and courtyard, situated in other plots in suit, it is pleaded by the defendant / appellant in his written statement that he has perfected the title over the same by virtue of adverse possession, as he enjoyed the possession of the same, uninterruptedly and peacefully for more than 12 years. Denying the sale deed, relied by the plaintiffs, it is stated that plaintiffs surreptitiously obtained fictitious documents to get dispossessed the defendant Bishan Lal Sah. It is also pleaded that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The defendant/appellant, denied the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.

5. Defendant No.2 filed his written statement before the trial court, who admitted that the shop in question, which is situated in one of the plots in suit, was let out to him by defendant No.1- Bishan Lal Sah. It is pleaded by this defendant that plaintiffs have no right to eject him from the shop in question. However, later he did not contest the suit and as against him proceedings were drawn exparte.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the disputed property?

2. Whether the disputed property was let out to defendant No. 1 on rent at the rate of Rs. 64/- per month by Laxmi Datt, father of the plaintiffs ?

3. Whether the disputed portion of the disputed property has been sublet by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 without permission of the plaintiffs'? If so, its affec