1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6504 of 2008

SHANKAR & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SURENDRA SINGH RAWAT (D)THR. L.RS

AND ANR.

...RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1.

This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 20.07.2006

passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in

Second Appeal No. 49 of 2006 in and by which the High Court

has affirmed the judgment of the Courts below granting the

decree

for

permanent

injunction

restraining

appellants/defendants from putting further construction and

granting mandatory injunction for demolition of the

construction raised in the property.

2.

The respondents/plaintiffs purchased the suit property

by a sale deed dated 03.05.1979 from the owner Swami Sardar

Jagir Singh for a consideration of Rs.18,400/- and the

respondents/plaintiffs have become owner of the property and

their names were also recorded as Bhumidhar in the revenue

records.

Respondents/plaintiffs

alleged

that

the

appellants/defendants have encroached upon the suit property

and put up construction. Hence, the respondents/plaintiffs

filed the suit for demolition of the construction raised by

Digitally signed by

MADHU BALA

Date: 2018.10.24

10:12:36 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

the appellants in the suit property and for permanent

injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from

putting up construction.

3.

The appellants pleaded that they purchased the property

from sardar Jagir Singh by a document dated 11.03.1976 for

Rs.1,800/- of the area 30x30 ft. The appellants/defendants

contended that they are in possession of the property for

more than 15 years and perfected the title by adverse

possession. The defendants have taken specific plea that the

suit is barred by the provisions of Section 331 of U.P.

Zamindari Abolition Act and Land Reforms Act.

4.

The Trial Court decreed the suit and granted permanent

injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and also

ordered demolition of the construction raised in the

property by the appellants. The First Appellate Court

dismissed

the

appeal;

but

held

that

the

respondents/plaintiffs are not entitled to receive

compensation/mense profit for use and occupation as ordered

by the Trial Court. The Second Appeal preferred by the

appellants/defendants was dismissed by the High Court.

5.

We have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the

impugned judgment and materials on record.

6.

The appellants/defendants are claiming title over the

suit property by unregistered document dated 11.03.1976. As

concurrently held by the Courts below, the unregistered

document does not confer any right upon the respondents. We

3

also do not find any good ground to interfere with the

concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding the

rejection of plea of adverse possession raised by the

appellants. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

mainly raised the contention that the Courts below have not

adverted to the plea raised by the appellants that the Civil

Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit and the suit is

barred by Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act.

In the Trial Court, Issue No. 7 was framed on the plea

regarding the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court under

Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act. Sofar as

Issue No. 7 is concerned, the Trial Court in its judgment

pointed out that the issue relating to jurisdiction of the

Court and the suit being barred by the provisions of Section

331 of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition Act has been decided in

favour of the respondents/plaintiffs in the preliminary

issue by order dated 13.02.1998.

7.

While considering the question relating to the