A suit for permanent injunction is maintainable without a declaration of title if the plaintiff establishes possession and the defendant fails to prove a superior right, especially when supported by unchallenged revenue entries and statutory protections for old abadi constructions.

1. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This instant appeal has been preferred with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 9.11.2004 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kanpur Nagar, in O.S No. 2001 of 1984. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their nomenclature before the Trial Court. Respondents shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs,while the appellant shall be referred to as defendant No. 1.

3. The plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering with his peaceful possession over House No. 127/W/1807-A, situated over part of Arazi No. 1807 and numbered by Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika, as well as over the entire Arazi No. 1807, measuring 23 bighas and 12 biswas. The plaintiff pleaded that he had obtained Arazi No. 1807, measuring 23 bighas and 12 biswas, situated at Mohal Dilip Singh, Village Juhi Kala, Kanpur, by virtue of a lease deed dated 07.05.1945 executed in his favour by the erstwhile Zamindar, Late Smt. Shiv Rani Kunwar. The land was taken on lease for establishing a brick kiln. However, the proposed business could not be started as the soil of the land was found to be alkaline and unsuitable for the purpose.

4. The plaintiff further pleaded that thereafter he raised huts and constructed a boundary wall over the land and started carrying on the business of building materials. He claimed to have remained in possession of the land since 01.07.1952. According to him, by virtue of his long-standing possession, the land is vested in him under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Vileya Abadi Adhiniyam, 1948 . It was also pleaded that neither the land in question nor any construction existing thereon was ever acquired by the State Government and, therefore, the same never vested either in the State Government or in defendant No. 1, Kanpur Development Authority. The plaintiff further claimed that on enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act , his rights in the land stood protected.

5. The plaintiff further pleaded that the house existing over the land had been assigned municipal number by Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika. According to him, a person claiming to be a Junior Engineer of defendant No. 1 came to the property, measured the land and directed him to remove the alleged illegal constructions, stating that the land was required for auction proceedings. The plaintiff claimed that no notice had been served upon him by defendant No. 1 regarding any such proceedings or proposed action. He, therefore, pleaded that defendant No. 1 had no right to interfere with his peaceful possession, giving rise to the cause of action for the suit.

6. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit and denied the plaintiff's claim. It was pleaded that the land in question had never belonged to Late Smt. Shiv Rani Kunwar. It was further pleaded that the disputed land was not situated at Mohal Dilip Singh, Village Juhi Kala, as alleged by the plaintiff, but at Mohal Ram Charan. The alleged lease deed dated 07.05.1945 was denied and described as forged and fabricated. Defendant No. 1 also questioned the plaintiff's claim that such a large tract of land could have been leased by a Zamindar.It was further pleaded by defendant No. 1 that Arazi No. 1807, stated to comprise 40 bighas, had been acquired on 18.10.1958 pursuant to Award No. 1 dated 16-10-1958 . According to defendant No. 1, possession of the acquired land was thereafter taken on 18.10.1958 and the defendant had remained in possession since then.

7. The other private defendants, in their respective written statements, also denied the averments made in the plaint. They pleaded that the name of the plaintiff had been wrongly recorded in