Hon''ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 4/1
who have appeared through caveat at the admission stage. This Second appeal has been filed by one of the ten plaintiffs of O.S. no.13 of 1984.
Rest of the plaintiffs/legal representatives of deceased plaintiffs are respondents no. 5 to 18 in this Second Appeal. The suit was filed by Ram
Sudhar Pandey against respondents no. 1 to 3 and respondent no.4 who has died and is survived by respondent nos. 4/1 to 4/4. The suit was
decreed by Ist Additional Munsif Ghazipur on 7.5.1988 and defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the
property in dispute shown in the map of Vakil Commissioner by latter A,B,C D,E,F, H. Commissioner''s map was made part of the decree.
Against the said decree defendants filed Civil Appeal no.142 of 1988. Meanwhile, original plaintiff had died and had been survived by 10 legal
representatives one of whom had also died. Appeal was allowed and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed through judgment and decree dated
13.12.2011 passed by A.D.J. (newly created temporary ex-cadre) Ghazipur hence this Second Appeal.
2. The lower appellate court after thorough examination of the evidence on record found that the pukka construction shown by letters KK - DE in
the Commissioners map had been made by the plaintiff around 1980 as was evident from the oral statement of plaintiff''s witnesses themselves.
3. As far as the old house of the plaintiff is concerned, from the Amin map it is clear that it has got no opening towards land in dispute. No side of
the old house of the plaintiff is parallel to any side of the land in dispute. The land in dispute is situate towards southern eastern corner of plaintiff''s
old house. Moreover, plaintiff gave the dimensions of his old house according to which the total area was hardly 35 sq. yard. The land in dispute is
15 -20 times of the area of plaintiffs old house. Plaintiff''s case was that he had taken the land over which he had constructed his old house for Rs.
200/-. However, he did not produce any sale deed. Moreover, from perusal of revenue record, Lower appellate court found that land in dispute
was not entered as gaon sabha land on 1.7.1952 and during consolidation it was entered as abadi land. Lower appellate court further found that
plaintiff could not even prove that the pukka room and thatched hut existing on the land in dispute belonged to the plaintiff.
4. Initially, plaintiff gave the number of the land in dispute as 34, however, afterwards he denied the said fact but did not give any new number. The
lower appellate court from the perusal of the documents filed before it pertaining to consolidation found that old numbers of plot no.34 were
55,56,57 and 58 which were bhoomidhari plots of different persons and during consolidation it was converted into abadi. Accordingly, if on
1.7.1952 the land belonged to different bhoomidhars/ Seerdhar it could not settle u/s 9. Moreover, disproportionately large area of land can not
settle u/s 9 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act. If a person has got a small house somewhere in a plot of 10 acre he can not claim settlement of the entire area of
10 acre with him u/s 9. u/s 9 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act firstly the land must be appurtenant to a house secondly it must be necessary for better
enjoyment of the constructed portion and should actually be used as such, thirdly it must have a reasonable ratio with the constructed portion and
in no case it shall be double the area of constructed portion. Plaintiff failed to prove any of these ingredients. Accordingly, I do not find any error in
the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court, Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.