Rajesh Bindal JUDGMENT
Vikram Nath, J.
1. The Plaintiff is in appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 15.05.2012 passed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing Second Appeal No. 202 of 1980, Sudesh Kumar and Ors. v. Brij Narayan Shukla and Ors. whereby, both the judgments of the First Appeal Court and the Trial Court were set aside and the suit of the Plaintiff Appellant was dismissed on the ground of limitation being barred by time.
2. Dispute relates to an area of 3500 sq. ft. (70 ft. x 50 ft.) (2 Biswa 12 Biswani) of Plot No. 1019 situated in Village Hardoi within the limits of Nagar Palika Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. The Plaintiff claimed title through a registered sale deed dated 21.01.1966 from the erstwhile Zamindar Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal. They also claimed to have received possession pursuant to the sale deed. It is also relevant to mention that the land purchased was an open piece of land. In 1975, when the Appellant tried to raise the construction over the land purchased, the Defendants objected and caused hindrance giving rise to the filing of the suit in question on 28.05.1975, registered as O.S. No. 161 of 1975 praying for the relief of injunction with alternative relief for possession.
3. The Defendant Respondent filed their written statement primarily alleging that there had been prior proceedings between Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal and his co-sharers and their tenants (ancestors of the Respondent) in the year 1944 where a suit was filed for arrears of rent with respect to Plot No. 1019, 1022 and 1023.
3.1. Further under the settlement between the Zamindar and co-sharers, the land in question came to Siddheshwari Narain and Deep Chandra in a private partition and as such these co- sharers became the owners of the land.
3.2. The Defendant Respondents having continued in possession at the time of abolition of Zamindari, became the owners.
3.3. Lastly, it was contended that soon after the sale deed of January, 1966 in favour of Plaintiff Appellant, there was proceedings Under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 in May, 1966. In the said proceedings, it was found that the Defendant Respondents were in possession.
4. Both the parties led evidence, both documentary and oral. The Trial Court found the Plaintiff Appellant to be the owner of the land in dispute as also in possession and accordingly decreed the suit for injunction vide judgment dated 19.09.1979.
5. The Trial Court had placed reliance upon the sale deed, the Mutation and the Khasra and Khewat entries. Further, the Trial Court had held that the proceedings Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure would not be of any benefit to the Defendant Respondents as it was not clear from the material placed that the said proceedings related to the land in quest........