JUDGMENT Dev Kant Trivedi, J.
1. This is the defendant's second appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by Sri S. B. Lal, the then Munsif Dalmau District. Rae Barely whereby the Suit No. 127 of 1976 for permanent Injunction was decreed and which decree was affirmed by Sri Y. R. Tripathi, the then Civil Judge, Rae Barell in Suit No. 80 of 1977 by means of the judgment dated 27.8.1979.
2. The dispute between the parties related to the land shown by letters P, Q, R, D, in Commissioner's map 16C 2/4. According to the plaintiff-respondent, on the said land he has a bangla and chhapper for more than 50 years which was being used by the plaintiff-respondent continuously. It was pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent that proceedings under Section 115C of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act were initiated against him by the Gaon Sabha which terminated in his favour. Subsequently, Gaon Sabha had executed a patta of 1 biswa land of plot No. 143. The defendant-appellant in the garb of the said patta has been allegedly threatening to dispossess the plaintiff-respondent from the property shown by letters P, Q, R, D in dispute between the parties.
3. Learned Munsif after considering the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent was owner and in possession of the disputed property for a long time. He also came to the conclusion that the contention of the defendant to the contrary was not correct. The said suit was, therefore, decreed by the learned Munsif.
4. Feeling aggrieved from the said Judgment and decree, the defendant-appellant went up in appeal. After considering the submissions of the parties, the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the disputed property is abadi and the plaintiff-respondent was held to be the owner of the disputed land. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
5. This second appeal has been filed against the aforesaid two judgments.
6. The main point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal is that the property in question could not have been settled with the plaintiff Inasmuch as it was not the land appurtenant to the house of the plaintiff-respondent. In the present case, it has not been the case of the plaintiff-respondent that the disputed property was the land appurtenant to his house. The plaintiff-respondent has made specific assertions that a bangla and chhapper which are the subject-matter of dispute have been in his possession for the last more than 50 years. This assertion of the plaintiff-respondent has been found to be correct by both the Courts below. Hence the argument of the learned counsel that the plaintiff-respondent failed to establish that the property in question was the land appurtenant to his house and settled with him, loses ground. The rest of the arguments on behalf of the defendant has been that the Gaon Sabha should have been impleaded as a party because plot No. 143 is recorded as the land of the Gaon Sabha and that no relief of permanent injunction could have been granted against the defendant-appellant till the Gaon Sabha was impleaded as a party. In the written statement filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, this plea was not taken. Naturally no issue could be framed on this point. In fact the dispute between the parties was over the title of disputed land (bangla and chhapper) and it was of no consequence that the Gaon Sabha was not made a party. The cause of action accrued to the plaintiff-respondent when the threats of dispossession were extended to him by the defendant-appellant after obtaining a patta from the Gaon Sabha. It was, therefore, not necessary for the plaintiff-respondent to have impleaded Gaon Sabha as a party. The Gaon Sabha had earlier lost its claim when it tried to dispossess the plaintiff-respondent and the proceedings under Section 115C were brought. Moreover, the findings recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court in the present suit do not bind Gaon Sabha at all. The Gaon Sabha was not necessary nor proper party to the suit. I have gone through the evidence of the parties and I am of the view that the learned trial court and so also the first appellate court committed no error whatsoever in giving findings that the plaintiff-respondent has been In possession of the disputed property. There seems to be no ground whatsoever to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. The learned trial court committed no error whatsoever in decreeing the suit nor any error whatsoever, has been commuted by the first appellate court in dismissing the appeal.
7. This second appeal has no force and deserves dismissal.
8. The appeal is dismissed with costs throughout.