1

A.F.R.

Judgement reserved on 8.2.2021

Judgement delivered on 19.4.2021

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 542 of 2020

Appellant :- Vijay Pal And 32 others

Respondent :- Rajendra Kumar

Counsel for Appellant :- Udayan Nandan,Sr. Advocate (Sri Shashi

Nandan)

Counsel for Respondent :- Mahesh Sharma,Sharad Sinha

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

1.

Heard Shri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the appellants and

Shri Dinesh Rai, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mahesh Sharma, learned

counsel for the respondent.

2.

The plaintiff-appellants have preferred the present second appeal

challenging the judgement and decree dated 2.11.2020 passed by the

appellate court setting aside the judgement dated 24.9.2016 passed by the

trial court decreeing the original suit No. 217 of 2007 (Vijay Pal and

others vs. Rajendra Kumar).

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellants instituted

original suit No. 217 of 2007 praying for a decree of mandatory

injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from peaceful

interference in his possession over plot No. 387 area 0.265 hectare

situated in Village Aurangabad Ahir Pargana Agauta, Tehsil & District

Bulandshahr. The plaint case was that Buddhi Singh was the owner of the

plot No. 387 area 2 bigha 10 biswa situated in Village Aurangabad Ahir

Pargana Agauta, Tehsil & District Bulandshahr. One Ajeet Singh and

Virendra Singh son of Risal Singh, Buddhi Singh son of Jagat Singh and

Jal Singh son of Meer Singh are the descendants of zamindar Fatah

Chandra. They had instituted original suit No. 262 of 1991 praying for

decree of declaration that they are the owner and in possession over plot

No. 387 (hereinafter referred to as 'property in question). Besides above,

Ajeet Singh and another instituted another suit praying that their names

be recorded in the records in respect of property in question based on

2

decreed dated 7.9.1993. The plaintiff-appellants claim that they and Ajeet

Singh belong to one family but Ajeet Singh without informing the

plaintiff-appellants got the aforesaid two suits decreed whereas the

plaintiff-appellants are also the owner and in possession of the property in

question. It is also pleaded that the name of the defendant-respondent has

been fraudulently recorded in the records. The defendant-respondent

being influential persons are trying to interfere in the peaceful possession

of the plaintiff-appellant which gave rise to the cause of action for filing

the present suit.

4.

The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent by filing a

written statement denying the allegation of the plaint. In the additional

plea, the defendant-respondent pleaded that the gata No. 387 is a big plot

having an area of 0.632 hectares out of which 0.367 hectares is recorded

in the name of Ajeet and the name of the defendant-respondent is recorded

with respect to 0.265 hectares of the said gata in khasara and khatauni.

The defendant-respondent specifically stated that the name of the

plaintiff-appellants is not recorded in any of the revenue records. They

also pleaded that the property in question is agricultural land and as there

is no declaration under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by the

competent authority, consequently, the suit is barred by Section 331 of

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The defendant-respondent also pleaded that the

property in question has been allotted to him by Gaon Sabha after

following due procedure.

5.

The plaintiff-appellants filed a replication stating therein that no

declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is required as

the Abadi on the land in question is old. Therefore, the suit is not barred

by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act.

6.

The defendant-appellants filed an additional written statement

contending inter-alia that in a suit for injunction, the declaration of rights

of the plaintiff-appellants is also involved. It is further pleaded that the

name of the plaintiff-appell