HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or ot approved for reporting) Description of the case S.A. No. 30 of 2008 Haridwar Develompment Authority and Aur. Vs. Smt. Janki Pandey Approved for reporting. Date of Decision: 07.05.2008. Initial of Judge ……………………. ……………………. …………………….. HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL SECOND APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2001 Sushil Kumar Oberoi …..….Appellant. Versus Union of India ……Respondents. Dated: 14.5.2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal, counsel for the appellant and Sri Arvind Vashisth, counsel for the respondent. 2. By the present Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2000 (sr. Devision), Dehradun in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999 Sushil Kumar Vs. Union of India arising out of judgment and decree dated 26.2.1999 in Original Suit No. 2 of 1972 Ram Lal Johar Vs. Bharat Sarkar. 3. Present Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial of law: “1. Whether the courts below have erred in law in framing and deciding issue relating to service of notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without objection being raised by the defendant?” 4. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff no.2 / appellant along with one Ram Lal Johar being Original Suit NO. 2 of 1972 Ram Lal Johar Vs. Bharat Sarkar praying to the following effect: “It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for possession be granted in plaintiff’s favour in respect of the property in suit with trees and all rights appurtenant thereto mentioned in the plaint herein and shown in the plan attached, against defendants. The cost of the suit be also allowed or any other relief which the plaintiff is deemed entitled.” 5. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff acquired property no. 10 (Cottage) Mohalla Curzon Road, Tehsil Dehradun, District Dehradun from the Pooled Evacuee Property from the Rehabilitation Department by virtue of certified dated 14.1.1960 of sale under Rule 19 (15) in auction held by the Department. The defendant no. 1 (now deceased) was the auction purchaser of the main Kothi, 10 Curzon Road, Dehradun. The property purchased by the plaintiff was adjacent to the property of the defendant no. 1. Plaintiff has submitted that the defendant no. 1 (now deceased) trespassed over the portion (7,755 sq. mtr.) of the area acquired the plaintiff as shown in black in the plan. There are about 50 trees of fruit standing of the area in question. The defendant no. 1 (now deceased trespassed over the said area about a year ago. The plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant no. 1 (now deceased) in order to vacate the said area but, he failed to do so, Thereafter, a number of times, the plaintiff requested him to comply with the request made by him for surrendering the possession of the trespassed area, but he declined to do so. The plaintiff gave a notice on 26.11.1971 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the defendant no. 2 the seller of the property acquired by the plaintiff in order to demarcate the area on the spot acquired by the plaintiff, but the defendant no. 2 did not pay any heed to it. 6. The defendants have contested the plaint averments contained in the suit by filling a written statement-Paper No. 23 Ka. In the written statement, it has been stated that the plaintiff is owner in possession of Khasra No. 300 and the defendant is owner in possession of Khasra No. 229 and the property of the defendant is situated in the western side of the property of the plaintiff. Apart from that, the defendant is owner in possession of Khasra No. 298, which is in the southern side of the land of the plaintiff. It has further been stated that the defendant has not received any map along with the written statement. The defendant has produced a map, wherein the property of the plaintiff has been shown by green colour and the property of the plaintiff has been shown as Khasra No. 297, 298 and 299, whereupon the plaintiff has wrongly encroached. The same has been shown by red and yellow colours. This map has been filed along with the objection filed against the application for permanent injunction. It has further been denied that any land of the plaintiff is lying vacant. It has further been denied that the defendants or his employees are trying to trespass the land of the plaintiff. It has further been denied that the defendants or their employee are obstructing the way of the plaintiff. It has further been denied that the defendant or his employees have threatened the plaintiff or his tenant to kill them. There is land of the defendant in the western side of the land of the plaintiff, whereupon, the defendant is in possession for a long time and there is no pathway on the land of the defendant for the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no right to use the land, which is in the western side of his land apart from his own land. Plaintiff was not in possession of the land for seven to eight years and the ancestors of the plaintiff were not in possession of the land in question for last 50 years. The defendant a number of times instructed the plaintiff not to raise any construction on the land of the defendant and no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was given by the plaintiff to the defendant. It has further been stated that the plaintiff has valued the suit lesser and insufficient court has been paid by the plaintiff. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that the plaintiff has illegally constructed three rooms and a Veranda on the land in question and for the said purpose, the plaintiff has filed the suit. It has further been stated that the property in question is not less than of Rs. 10,000/-, therefore, the plaintiff has valued the suit lesser. Again it has been stated that the defendants are owner in possession of Khasra No. 297, 298 and 299. This property is situated in the western side of the property of the plaintiff. It has been stated that an old house of the plaintiff is situated on Khasra No. 300 and in the northern side of the Plot No. 299 and 300 on plot No. 300 and 298, there is a pathway, which is in the ownership of the Railway Department and it manages the aforesaid pathway. It has further been denied that there was a way for egress and ingress from the old house of the plaintiff. According to the acquisition proceedings completing on 19.12.2003, the Railway is the owner in possession of the said land and land in question has been taken by the defendants in their possession on 1.10.1989 and is in possession of the land in question. According to settlement of 1905, present Khasra No. 299 was a part of Old Khara No. 15 in the year 1904 to 1905. There are railway quarters on Plot No. 299 and one Septic Tank exists on the said plot and Union of India (Railway Management) is the earlier owner of the same. It has further been stated that neither the plaintiff has any right over Plot No. 299 and 298, nor the same obstructs the way of the plaintiff. Recently, the plaintiff has constructed three rooms and one Varandah by encroaching some part of Plot No. 299, therefore, the plaintiff has encroached upon the Plot No. 299 forcibly and illegally and further the plaintiff wants to encroach the land of the defendants which is the part of Plot No. 299. By encroachment, the drain, in which the dirty water of the Railway Colony and Septic Tank Flows, has been stopped and the same is creating nuisance and the people living in the Railway Colony are facing trouble in living there. It has further been stated that the plaintiff has no right over the land encroached illegality. He is a trespasser on the said land and is not entitled to get any permanent injunction. In the additional written statement Paper No. 39 Ka, wherein it has been stated that from the map attached with the amendment application, the clear picture of the spot does not appear and the said map is cryptic. It has further been stated that by putting a window by the defendant, the door of the plaintiff shown by letter B C has not bee closed as there is no door on the fencing. It has further been stated that the plaintiff is not the owner of whole land of Plot No. 300, but according to the boundary mentioned in the sale deed, he appears to be the owner of one part of the Khasra No. 300. It has further been stated that the defendants has fenced the boundary of his land so that no illegal encroachment may further take place on the land of the defendant. The defendant have further filed an additional written statement Paper No. 75 Ka, where it has been stated that fencing had been put by the defendant at the time, when the suit had not been filed. It has further been stated that the plaintiff is not facing any loss amounting to Rs. 300/- per months. The defendants have further filed an additional Written Statement Paper No. 210 Ka, where it has been stated that Sri Ram Lal Johar is not the owner of the whole Khasra No. 300, but he had been sold a land measuring 8100 sq. ft vide sale deed dated 1.9.1965 and the same cannot be transferred to him on the basis of said sale deed. Khasra No. 300 was not the private property of Sri Ram Nath Johar, therefore, he was not entitled to get the same transferred on the basis of the said Will. It has further been stated that all heirs of the deceased have not been substituted as party in the suit. The deceased is having a daughter and his brother, who are necessary parties in the present suit. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the defendant are attempting to take forcibly the possession of the plaintiff’s land and put obstruction on the egress and ingress of the benefits of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the ingress and egress of the plaintiff’s house is only from the western side and there is an other passage and whether any passage exists as shown in para 10 of the W.S.? 3. Whether the plaintiff or his predecessors in interest were in possession of disputed land as alleged in para 3 of the plaint? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damage amounting to Rs. 300/- p.m. as alleged in para 5 (a) of the plaint? 5. Whether the suit is undervalued and the court fee paid is insufficient? 6. Whether the plaintiff has encroached upon the land of the defendant bearing No. 299 as alleged in para 12 of the W.S.? 7. Whether the plaintiff has any right over the land on which he had made the construction? 8. Whether the defendant has put wire fencing on the plaintiff’s land? 9. To what relief, if any, is the entitled? 10. Whether the newly added plaintiff namely Sm.t Sitawanti has acquired any right in the land in suit by virtue of Will executed by Ram Lal Johar? 11. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?” 8. Plaintiff has filed per list 6 Ga 1 six documents, per List 52 Ga -1 foru documents, per list 57 GA three documents, per list 154 one document and per list 201 Ga one document. Towards the oral evidence, Statements of Jamil Sabri (P.W.1) and Sushil Kmar (P.W.1) have been taken, which are Paper No. 204 Ka -1 and 205 –Ka1. Statements of R.N. Johar (P.W.2) and Sri R.B. Agarwal, (P.W.3) have been taken, which are Paper No. 243 Ka-1 and 281 Ka -1. 9. The defendant have filed per List 77 Ga -1 two documents, per list 95Ga-1 twelve documents, per list 126Ga-1 five documents, 230 – Ka -1 two documents and per list 272 GA -1 one Register. Towards the oral evidence, H.P.Singh and Sai Das have been examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 respectively. 10. While deciding the issue no. 10, the trial Court has recorded a finding that neither any objection has been raised by the defendant regarding the Will, nor any argument has been raised in this regard, thus, the trail Court has decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff. 11. While deciding the issue no. 11, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has not presented any logic with regard to this issue, therefore, the issue has been decided in favour of the plaintiff. 12. While deciding the issue no. 12, the trial Court has recorded a finding to the following effect: “eSaus mijksDr uthj dk voyksdu fd;k ftledsa ;g fl}kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn okn i= esa la”kks/ku ds }kjk dksbZ u;k okn dkj.k mRiUUk gksrk gS rFkk tks ewy :Ik ls nk;j fd, x, nkos ls fHkUU gks rks ml fLFkfr esa /kkjk &80 lh0ih0lh0 dks uksfVl fn;k tkuk vko”;d gksrk gSA blh izdkj ls QeZ xqyke eksgnhu vkfn cuke LVsV vkQ ;w0ih0 tEew Q.M dk”ehj jkT;] ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1961 tEew ,.M dk”ehj dk gkokyk fn;kA ftlesa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd ;|fi okn i= ds izR;sd la”kks/ku ds fy, /kkjk &80 lh0ih0lh0 dk uksfVl fn;k tkuk vko”;d ugha gS fdUrq dksbZ Uk;k vuqrks’k okn i= esa la”kks/ku }kjk ekaxk tkrk gS vkSj la’kks/ku }kjk u;k okn dkj.k mRiUu gksrk tks fd ewy :Ik ls fn, x, uksfVl esa ugha vkrh bl izdkj iqu% /kkjk &80 lh0ih0lh0 dk uksfVl fn;k tkuk vko”;d gksrk gSA izfroknhx.k ds vf/koDrk us esjs le{k ,d vU; uthj 1963] ,l0lh0 ] 424 ] 1960 bykgkckn ist 420] 1972 dydRrk ist 466 dk gokyk fn;kA uthj ;w0ih0 xoZuesUV cuke ykyyk uUuwey xqIrk vkfn ,0vkbZvkj0 1960 bykgkckn ist 420 dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ftlesa U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk &80 lh0ih0lh0 ds vUrxZr uksfVl fn, tkus dk ;g vfHkizk; gS fd ftlls fd ljdkj Dyse dks r; dj ys vkSj nkok bR;kfn ds gksus ls jksdk tk ldsA ijUrq tagk uksfVl esa fn, x, okn dkj.k ls fHkUu fo’k; ij nkok ;ksftr gksrk rks ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk &80 dk fn;k x;k uksfVl Ik;kZIr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA mijksDr uthj ds ifjis{; esa eSa bl fu’d’kZ ij igq¡prh gw¡ fd oknh x.k }kjk uksfVl esa fn, x, okn dkj.k ls fHkUu okn dkj.k dk U;k;ky; esa oknh x.k ds okn ;ksftr fd;k gSA vr% oknhx.k }kjk /kkjk &80 lh0ih0lh0 dk uksfVl lE;d :Ik ls ugha fn;k x;kA foØ; i= fnukafdr 53 d&1 ds ifj”khyu ls ;g Li’V gksrk gS fd o’kZ 9-2-73 dks fookfnr Hkwfe [kljk ua0 300 dk if”peh Hkkx ftlds lEcU/k esa oknhx.k vuqrks’k pkgrk gS] dks oknh x.k }kjk Jh jke ukFk tkSgj dks csp nh xbZ rFkk jke ukFk tkSgj us iqu% foØ; i= 53 d ds }kjk fookfnr lEifRr dk 9-2- 73 dks Jh jkeyky tkSgj rFkk lq”khy vkscjk; dks fjcVZ rFkk csp fn;k x;k rFkk foØ; i= fu’ikfr dj fn;k x;k tcfd U;k;ky; esa nkok fnukad 1-1-72 dks ;ksftr gqvkA bl fy, nkok ;ksftr djus dh rkjh[k dks jke yky tkSgj rFkk lq”khy vkscjk; [kljk ua0 300 ds if”peh iV~Vh Hkkx tks fd bl dsl esa fookfnr gS ds ekfyd ugha gSA vr% /kkjk 80 lh0ih0lh0 dk uksfVl fnukad 7-7-70 dk fn;k x;k gS og Jh jke ukFk tkSgj }kjk ugha fnx;k x;k gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa Hkh nkok ;ksftr djus ls igys /kjk 80 lh0ih0lh0 dk lEi;d :Ik ls uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k gSA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu’d’kZ ij igq¡prh gw¡ fd oknh dk okn /kkjk &80 lh0ih0lh0 ds uksfVl ls ckf/kr gSA vr% okn fcUnq ua0 12 rnkuqlkj oknh x.k ds fo:) r; fd;k tkrk gSA” 13. While deciding the issue no. 1, 3, 6 and 7, the trial Court has recorded a finding to the following effect: “oknhx.k us vius okn i= esa ;g dgk gS fd oknh x.k fookfnr lEifRr ds dCts esa 7&8 lky ls gS rFkk blls iwoZ muds iwoZt 50 lky ls dkfct gSA tgka rd oknh x.k ds fookfnr lEifRr ds dCts esa 7&8 lky ls “kkfUriwoZd dCts esa gksus ds rF; dk iz”u gS] oknh x.k dh vksj ls Lo;a lwfp lcwr 8 x ls dqN dkxt nkf[ky fd, x, gS ftlesa uksfVl dkxt ua0 10x tks fd fnukad 7-7-70 dks fn;k x;k gS ftlesa oknhx.k us Lo;a fookfnr lEifRr ij izfroknh vkSj mlds deZpkfj;ksa }kjk gLr{ksi djus dk dFku fd;k gSA blds vykok oknh x.k us ,d vkSj izkFkZuk i= dkxt la0 13x i=koyh ij nkf[ky f;k gSA ;g izkFkZuk i= 15-2-71 dks LVs’ku ekLVj jsyos LVs’ku MksbZokyk dks jke yky tkSgj }kjk fn;k x;k ftlesa izfroknh x.k }kjk fookfnr lEifRr esa gLr{ksi djus rFkk mlesa cuh rkehjkr dks fMeksfy’k u djus ds lEcU/k esa izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k gSA bu nksuksa izkFkZuk i=ksa ds ifj’khyu ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd oknh x.k fookfnr lEifRr ds iz;ksx ea 7&8 lky ls 'kkfUriwoZd dCts esa ugha jgk gksaxsaA D;ksafd tc jsyos foHkkx }kjk oknh ds dCts esa vkifRr dh tkjrh jgh gS tSlk fd oknh Lo;a gh dg dj vk jgk gSA tgka rd oknh ds iwoZt }kjk 50 lky ls vf/kd le; ls fookfnr lEifRr ds dCts esa jgus dk lEcU/k gS] oknhx.k }kjk vius fdlh Hkh iwoZ Lokeh dks crkSj lk{kh U;k;ky; esa is’k ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls fd og crk ldrs fd oknh x.k ds iwoZt iwoZ Lokeh 'kkfUriwoZd fookfnr lEifRr ds dCts esa iz;ksx ea FksA vkSj fookfnr lEifRr oknhx.k ds iwoZtksa dh feyfd;r dh Hkkx FkhA vc rd iz’u 'ks"k jg tkrk gS fd oknhx.k us [kljk ua0 299 ds dqN Hkkx ij dCtk fd;k tSlk fd izfrokn i= esa dgk x;k gSA oknh ds vf/koDrk us esjs le{k cgl esa dgk fd izfroknh us vius izfrokn i= esa ;g ugha crk;k gS fd oknhx.k us [kljk ua0 299 ds fdrus jdcs ij dkSu lh rkjh[kk dk dkSu ls ekg o lky esa vukf/kd`r dCtk fd;kA izfroknh us vius dsl dks lkfcr djus ds fy, ,d jftLVj dkxt la0 273 ds is’k fd;k gSA bld vfrfjDr izfroknh dh vksj ls 95 x lwfp ls 12 dkxtkr nkf[ky fd, x, gSa ftlesa dkxt la0 96 d vf/kxzg.k [kljk gS] 97 ds ,okMZ gS] 98 d dCtk lkfVZfQdsV gS] 89 x 2 'khVksa esa vf/kd`r dh xbZ Hkwfe dk uD’kk gS] 100 d ltjkesi gS rFkk 101 d [kkrk [ksoV gS rFkk 102 d nLrkost [kljk [krkSuh gS tks fd lVsyesaV 1938&1945 Qlyh lky ekj[ke xzkUV ds gSa rFkk dkxt ua0 103 d [kkrk gS rFkk 104 d QnZ [ksoV egky gS rFkk 105 d udy [krkSuh egky gSA mijksDr nkf[ky lc dkxtkrksa ds ifj'khyu ls ;g rF; lkfcr gksrk gS fd izfroknh ds gd esa [kljk ua0 299 dk vf/kxzg.k fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk jsyos VSªd ls 200&200 QhV rd dh tehu izfroknh foHkkx ds fy, vf/kxzghr dh xbZ FkhA oknh dh vksj ls xokg ih0MCyw&1 lq’khy dqekj us vius c;ku dkxt ua0 242 d esa ist & 5 esa ;g c;ku fn;k gS fd dkxt ua0 232 d gekjh fuekZ.k dh fLFkfr lgh iznf’kZr dh gSA bl izdkj xokg ih0MCyw&1 izfroknh }kjk tks viuh fyLV ds lkFk dkxt ua0 232 d nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS mldks xokg ih0MCyw&1 us lgh gksuk rFkk okhnx.k }kjk fd, x, dfFkr vukf/kd`r fuekZ.k dh fLFkfr dks lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd izfroknh }kjk dkxt ua0 232 d izfroknh }kjk vukf/kd`r fuekZ.k ds fd, tkus ds lEcU/k esa uD’kk gSA xokg ih0MCyw& 1 lq’khy dqeku us vius c;ku dkxt la0 242 d ds ist ua0 & 5 ij vkxs ;g c;ku fn;k gS fd dkxt ua0 232d gekjh fuekZ.k dh fLFkfr lgh iznf’kZr dh gSA [kljk ua0 300 ds mRrjh if’peh fljsA mRrj nf{k.kh 250 QhV ds djhc gSA dfEk’uj lkgc us ekSds ij [kljk ua0 300 ukik Fkk&& 232 d esa gekjh iqjkuh fcfYMax ugha fn[kkbZ gSA 232 d ekufp= esa uhys jax o yky jax ls fn[kkbZ xbZ tehu gekjh gSA taaaxys yky jax ds iwoZ esa yxk, x, gSA gekjh iqjkuh fcfYMax uhyh ykbZu ls fn[kkbZ xbZ dqN fgLls esa gSA yky jax ls fn[kkbZ xbZ txg esa iqjkugh fcfYMax dk dksbZ fgLlk ugha gSA bl izdkj xokg ih0MCyw&1 ds c;kuksa ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd uD’kk dkxt ua0 232 d esa tks dfFkr fuekZ.k oknh }kjk vukf/kd`r :Ik ls fd;k tkuk izfroknh us crk;k gS og fuekZ.k izfroknh us uD’ks esa [kljk ua0 232 dks lgha gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSa bl izdkj i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd oknh }kjk [kljk ua0 299 esa vukf/kd`r :Ik ls dfFkr fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gSA oknhx.k vius dsl dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgs gSa fd fookfnr Hkwfe mlds [kljk ua0 300 dk Hkkx gSA vr% fookfnr Hkwfe [kljk ua0 300 dk Hkku u gksus ds dkj.k oknhx.k dks dfFkr Hkwfe esa vkus tkus dks dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSa vkSj uk gh ml Hkwfe ij ftl ij oknhx.k us vukf/kd`r :Ik ls fuekZ.k fd;k gS] ml ij Hkh oknhx.k dks fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ gx ;k VkbZVy izkIr ugha gSA xokg ih0MCY;w&1 lq’khydqekj us vius c;ku dkxt la0 242 d ds ist &5 esa ;g c;ku fn;k gS fd u;s fuekZ.k o iqjkus fuekZ.k ds chp gekjh iqjkuh ukyh cuh gSa ;g fcfYMaax ds ysus ls igys dh cuh gSA bl ukyh ls ikuh vkxs nf{k.kh rjQ tkrk gSa rFkk ukyh ds if’pe esa feysa gq, jsyos foHkkx ds lh[kpsa yxs gq, gSA ukyh nf{k.k esa ugj esa pyh tkrh gSA bl izdkj ls xokg ih0Mcyw&1 dk dFku izfroknhx.k ds dsl dks cy nsrk gSa izfroknh us vius izfrokn Ik= esa ist& 13 ij ;g dgk gS fd oknh }kjk vukf/kd`r fuekZ.k djus ls jsyos dkykSuh dh xUnk ikuh dh ukyh o lsfIVd Vsad ls ukyh vo:) gks xbZ gSA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd fdlh Hkh fcfYMax ds pkjksa rjQ dh gn lekIr gksus ds Ik’pkr gh ukyh xqtjrh gS fdlh ds ?kj ds chp esa ls vke ukyh ugha fudy ldrh gSA ;g ifjfLFkfr Hkh ;g bafdr djrh gS fd oknh dh lEifRr [kljk ua0 300 dk Hkkx ugha gSA” 14. By recording the aforesaid, the issues no. 1, 3, 6 and 7 have been decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. 15. While deciding the issues no. 2, the trial has recorded a finding there is a way for ingress and egress of the plaintiff from the southern side as well as eastern. This issue has been decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. 16. While deciding the issue no. 8, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the iron window has not been fixed during course of trial by the defendants and the property in question does not belong to the plaintiff. Thus, this issue has been decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. 17. While deciding the issue no. 4, the trial Court has relied upon the findings recorded in issue no. 1, 3, 6 and 7 that the Khasra No. 300 is not the property of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief. This issue has been decided accordingly. 18. While deciding the issue no. 9, the trial Court has recorded a finding that on the basis of the findings recorded while deciding the issues no. 1,2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 12, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief. 19. The suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed on 26.2.1999.