Compliance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC is mandatory for the appellate court before deciding the appeal on its merits.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The brief facts, which engage consideration in the present Second Appeal are that, principally, in relation to the properties, which was lying in plot Nos. 235/1, 235/2 and 235/3, were earlier made as a subject matter of the proceedings of a Civil Suit, being Civil Suit No. 425 of 1925, which was decided by the then Court of Munsif, Deoband, by virtue of a judgment dated 19.11.1925, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff, therein was partially decreed, only in relation to relief 'a' of the plaint. This judgment, though it had been referred in the present Second Appeal, but it may not be of much relevant consideration for the purposes of deciding the present Second Appeal.

2. The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants/appellants herein, alleging themselves to be aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2012, as was rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge/2nd FTC Haridwar, in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Sukhbiri Vs. Mahesh Lata and Another, by virtue of the said judgment of the Appellate Court, the appeal, which was preferred by the defendants/appellants was dismissed and, consequently, it was resulting into affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2004, which was passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar in Original Suit No. 203 of 1994, Mahesh Lata and Another Vs. Sukhbiri. Hence, the present Second Appeal, was instituted by the defendants/appellants, on 24.04.2012.

3. Before venturing into the arguments which had been extended by the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants, the brief backdrop of the case are that, on 30.05.1994, the plaintiff/respondent, had instituted a civil suit for the grant of decree of permanent injunction, as against the defendants/appellants, in relation to the property, which was more particularly described at the foot of the plaint; to be constituting of khasra No. 235/2 and 235/3, having an area of total 3 biswa and 6 biswansis of land, which was in the pleadings contended to be an abadi land, lying in village Jagjitpur, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehslil and District Haridwar. The suit property its chauhaddi was described in the plaint itself, in the north, there was a public passage and a place of worship of bhutia devta; in the south, it was harijan basti; in the east yet again a public passage and, in the west, it was a gher or maidan (open land).

4. The plaintiff/respondent had pleaded in the suit that the suit property, as described therein, its principal recorded owner was Harnam son of Mehru, who was contended to be the grandfather of the plaintiff/respondent herein and the case of the plaintiff/respondent, in the Suit, was that on the date of death of Harnam, the property was succeeded by his two sons i.e. Ganeshi Lal and Ratan Lal, who too had later met with the sad demise and thereafter, their estate were succeeded by plaintiff No. 1 being the son of Ganeshi Lal and plaintiff No. 2 being the son of late Mr. Ratan Lal. Their plaint contention was that the defendants without there being any right, title or interest vested with them were trying to forcefully interfere in their ancestral property by forceful interference, and despite the fact that the defendants, were never ever recorded in the revenue records, and hence in the plaint, it was contended that the cause of action for them to institute the suit has arisen on 25.05.1994, consequently, the suit was filed on 30.05.1994, for the grant of the decree of permanent injunction of the following nature :-

5. On institution of the suit, the defendants were noticed; and they filed their written statement on 21.11.1996, and they took a plea that the plaintiffs' suit for the grant of decree was malicious and was based upon the fictitious rights which was allegedly claimed by the plaintiff for the purposes of institution of the suit and rather it intended and was an attempt to encroach upon the land of the defendants/appellants. But, however, during th