JUDGMENT :

On 30.05.1994, the plaintiff/appellants, herein, had instituted a suit being Suit No. 203 of 1994, “Maheshlata and another vs. Sukhbiri” in relation to the set of property, which was more appropriately described therein at the foot of the plaint i.e. the land lying in Khasra No. 235/2, 235/3, having an area of 3 Biswa, 6 Biswansi of land, lying in Abadi khetra of village Jagjeetpur, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar. The boundary of the property in question was describe therein as in the North a path way and thereafter, the land of the temple, in the South Harijan Basti, in the East, there was a passage and in the West property of Madan.

2. In the suit thus instituted by the plaintiff/appellant herein had described the property more appropriately in the plaint map which was annexed therein and which constituted as to be the part of the record by way of paper no. 4A/6, and the nature of the decree which was sought by the plaintiff in the suit in question was as under:-

^^;g fd oknhx.k vnkyr ls fuEufyf[kr ekax djrs gS%

(v) fMzXkh bLrdlfj;k cgd ;knhx.k cjf[kykQ izfroknhx.k bl vej dh lkfnj Qjek;h tkos fd oknhx.k vkjkth fuEufyf[kr ,ŒchŒlhŒMh0 ds rUgkLokeh o ekfyd gSA

(v) ctfj;s fMxzh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds }kjk izfroknh dks fu"ks/k fd;k tkos fd og oknhx.k ds dCts vkjkth fuEufyf[kr es dksbZ n[ky vankth izR;{k ;k ijks{k :I ls uk djs] uk djkosA

¼Lk½ [kpkZ eqdnek oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA

(b) vU; fnxj nknjlh tks jk; vnkyr esa mfpr gks og Hkh lkfnj Qjek;h tkosA^^

3. In fact, if the nature of decree, which was sought to be granted in the suit, is taken into consideration, apart from the fact that he was seeking a decree for grant of permanent injunction as against the defendant/respondent of their alleged act of wrongful interference over the property in dispute. The plaintiff has also sought a decree of declaration of their title and ownership with regard to the property described by figure a, b, c, d, as described in the plaint map. Meaning thereby, the suit in question, had an element of declaration of title qua the property in dispute described at the foot of the plaint, when relief modulated was for seeking of declaration.

4. The defendant/respondents were noticed and they filed the written statement on 21.11.1996, and by way of a counter claim, the defendant had sought a decree of grant of possession over the part of the property, lying in Khasra No. 235/1 the relevant part of the relief sought by way of counter claim invoking Order VIII Rule 6A is extracted hereunder:-

^^vr% izfroknuh izkFkZuk djrh gS fd:

v& ;g fd iz'Ukxr lEifŸk ftldk fooj.k okni= ds var esa fn;k x;k gS [kljk ua 235@1 dks dCtk oknuh ls izfroknuh dks fnyk;k tkosA

c& ;g fd vU; nknjlh tks jk; vnkyr es mfpr gks izfrokfnuh dks oknuh ls fnyk;h tkosA

l& ;g fd [kpkZ dkmUVj Dyse izfrokfnuh dks oknuh ls fnyk;k tkosA

5. The suit proceeded, and after the exchange of pleadings, the learned Trial Court has framed the following issues on 04.12.1996 and an additional issue was framed on 06.07.2021 to the following effect :-

^^1- D;k fookfnr lEifŸk ij oknhx.k dks feyfd;rh vf/kdkj gkfly gS\

2- D;k okn ,lVksiy ykW vkWQ ,Ddhts'ku jsltqfMdsVk ds fl)kra ls ckf/kr gS

3- D;k okn dk ewY;akdu de fd;k x;k gS\

4- D;k fookfnr Hkwfe [kljk la[;k 235@1 ;k 235@2 o 235@3 esa fLFkr gS\

5- D;k izfroknuh ls [kljk uaΠ235@1 ij dCtk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\

6- D;k dkmUVj Dyse dk ewY;kadu de fd;k gS rFkk iznŸk U;k;'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\

7- vuqrks”k] ;fn dksbZ gks ftls oknuh o izfroknuh izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\^^

6. The parties to the proceedings led their respective evidence, both oral and documentary, and particularly the plaintiff/appellant herein, in support of his contention had placed on record the copy of Khasra, which happens to be a document of possession, in relation to the land in dispute and a copy of an application, which was filed by the plaintiff/appellant. Whereas, the defendant in support of their contention had filed the documents by way of list No. 21C1,