\210\213 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.666 OF 2015

[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8008 of 2009]

Zarif Ahmad (D) through Lrs.

& Another ... Appellants

Versus

Mohd. Farooq ... Respondent

JUDGMENT

PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order

dated 10.12.2008 passed by High Court of judicature at

Allahabad whereby Second Appeal is allowed and the

decree passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Havali,

Saharanpur, in Suit No. 77 of 1999, is restored.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the papers on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

Chetan Kumar

instituted suit (OS No. 77 of 1999) seeking permanent

Date: 2015.01.27

16:36:54 IST

Reason:

injunction against his brother defendant/appellant no. 1 -

1

Zarif Ahmad and nephew Zamir Ahmad

(defendant/appellant no. 2) to restrain them from

interfering in possession of the premises in his occupation.

It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the land shown at the foot

of the plaint (Annexure P-1) with letters Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha,

Cha, Chha, which bears Nagar Panchayat plot no. 358 is

owned and possessed by him, and the adjoining land

shown by letters Gha, Cha, Chha, and Jha bearing Nagar

Panchayat plot no. 357 belongs to the defendants. It is

further pleaded that plaintiff pays house tax of the

property no. 358, and defendants have no concern with it.

The defendants have constructed their house over the land

shown by letters Gha, Cha, Chha, and Jha which is

towards south of the plaintiff’s land. It is alleged in the

plaint that the defendants have threatened the plaintiff

that they would forcibly take possession of the premises

held by him. Consequently, the suit is filed.

4. The defendants contested the suit, and filed written

statement (copy-Annexure P-3) before the trial court. They

denied the title and possession of the plaintiff over land in

2

suit. It is stated in the written statement that the

disputed land originally belonged to one Zamindar of town

Behat, before abolition of Zamindari. The land in question

was vacant piece of land, occupied by defendant no. 1 who

constructed his residence and planted trees over it. He

(defendant no. 1) continued his possession over the land

and started paying house tax since 1979 when Town Area

of Behat was notified. It is further pleaded by the

defendants that original Khasra number of the plot in

question was 734/2/3. It is further pleaded that the

plaintiff has been given share in the house of his father in

the ancestral property situated in town Kasban, and he

lives with his family there. It is alleged by the defendants

that the plaintiff got his name entered in the municipal

record in connivance with the Chairman and Members of

Town Area Committee, Behat, and got the disputed

property numbered as 358. It is further pleaded that the

suit is bad for mis-joinder of defendant no. 2. With the

above pleadings, the relief claimed by the plaintiff was

opposed by