Lok Pal Singh, J.

1. Present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Almora in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1984 Smt. Rama Arya vs. Hayat Singh and Others.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that plaintiff/appellants filed a suit being Original Suit No. 34 of 1983 for permanent injunction and recovery of possession against the defendant/ respondent with the averments that they are residents of city Almora and are owners of plot no. 14543, 14544, 14546 and the defendant has no right over any of the plots and is trying to take forceful possession and is trying to raise construction over it. During the pendency of suit, plaintiffs got amended their plaint to the effect that during the pendency of suit, the defendant has raised some construction, therefore, decree of mandatory injunction be issued in favour of the plaintiffs, directing the defendant to remove the illegal construction from the suit property. The defendant contested the suit and filed her written statement as well as additional written statement and contended that the defendant is not threatening the plaintiffs. She contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the disputed plot and that she had started construction over plot no. 14546 before filing of the suit which was completed in the month of March 1983. The plaintiffs did not raise any objection at the time of construction of the house. She has spent Rs. 18,000/- towards construction of house.

3. On the basis of pleading of the parties, Munsif, Almora framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are landlord and in possession of the land in dispute? If so, its effect?

(ii) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled for?

4. Thereafter, the parties led their oral and documentary evidence. In documentary evidence, the plaintiffs filed copy of khatoni, copy of map, receipts of lagan, whereas no property rights were filed by the defendants. In oral evidence, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and Rajendra Singh as PW-2. On behalf of the respondent/defendant, statement of DW-1 Rama Arya was recorded. After hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence recorded, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed plots and the defendant has no right to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide order dated 27.8.1984. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1984 before the Civil Judge, Almora, which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.1984 and the judgment and decree dated 27.8.1984 was set aside. Against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1984 passed by the first appellate court, the plaintiff preferred Second Appeal No. 35 of 2001 before this Court. This Court, vide its judgment and order dated 02.05.2007, allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the first appellate court for deciding afresh after affording opportunity to the parties. This judgment dated 02.05.2007 was challenged by the defendant before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing a Special Leave to Petition, but the Hon’ble Apex court, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed the SLP. After remand, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Almora framed issue no. 3 as under:

“Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by principle of Estoppels and acquiescence?”

5. After framing the issue, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) sent the case to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Almora for disposal of issue no. 3. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Almora registered the case and decided issue no. 3 in favour of the defendant vide order dated 7.7.2010, which was challenged by the defendant in Civil Revision No. 16 of 2010 in the court of District