JUDGMENT Mithan Lal, J. - This second appeal filed by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for a declaration that the land in dispute is appurtenant to the plaintiff's residential building and is settled with the plaintiff. The plain tiff also prayed for a relief of injunction. The suit was totally dismissed by the trial court but the lower appellate court granted the plaintiff a decree for a declaration but refused to grant an injunction. 2. Defendant No. 1 in this case is the State Government while defendant No. 2 is the Gram, Sabha of village Aghwanpur. The plaintiff was the former Zamindar of the village. It was alleged that the land in dispute was a part of the compound of the plaintiff's residential house and was appurtenant to the said building. The site should be deemed to have been settled with the plaintiff under Sec. 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called as the Act). This land was used for purposes of holding a bazar and it was alleged that the defendants were interfering in the plaintiff's possession and were bent upon auctioning the bazar and so the suit was filed. 3. The suit was resisted on behalf of the State as well as the Gram Sabha. The plaintiff was said to have no rights in the land nor was the land said to be appurtenant to the plaintiff's house. It was also stated that the hats and bazars having vested in the State Government the plaintiff was not entitled to realise the tahbazari. 4. The lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the land in dispute was appurtenant to the plaintiff's house, that the bazar held on this land vested in the State Government under Sec. 6 of the Act and so the plaintiff was granted decree for declaration and not for injunction. 5. Sri K.C. Saxena learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that Sec. 9 is an exception to Sec. 6 of the Act. Once it has been found that the land in dispute is appurtenant to the plaintiff's house it necessarily followed that the site was settled with the plaintiff and the plaintiff was entitled to use the land in any manner she liked. According to his contention the right of realisation of tahbazari was in the exercise of the possessory right and not proprietary right. According to his contention the right of realisation of tahbazari was in the exercise of the possessory right and not proprietary right. He has further referred to the amendment made in Cl. (vi) to Sec. 117 of the Act and has contended that the right to hats and bazars held on land, which are settled under Sec. 9 is protected and even though this amendment was made in 1954 yet it shows the intention of the legislature in preserving those rights. 6. Sri H.N. Seth learned counsel for the State who has very ably argued the case had drawn a distinction between the proprietary and the possessory right and his contention is that after the vesting took place and all rights, title and interest of intermediaries were extinguished in hats and bazars under Sec. 6 (a) of the Act, the mere settlement of site of certain land under Sec. 9 did not give such persons a right to realise tahbazari dues. It is also his contention that prior to 1954 even the possessory right of Sec. 9 in respect of hats and bazars had not been recognised and as the suit had been filed prig to the amendment, the plaintiff had no right to maintain the suit. He has also submitted that the bazar or site of the bazar could not be treated to be a land appurtenant to plaintiff's house and it is against the very notion of appurtenance that an ex-zamindar, whose zamindari has been abolished, should be allowed to claim bazar and hats lands as appurtenant to a house. According to him the purpose for which this land is being used is inconsistent with the very idea of a land being appurtenant to a house. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. So far as the question of the land being appurtenant to the house goes, it is a question of fact. It may be that a bazar is held on the land in suit but when this land is a part of a compound of a house the user of the land will not change its nature. So far as the question of the land being appurtenant to the house goes, it is a question of fact. It may be that a bazar is held on the land in suit but when this land is a part of a compound of a house the user of the land will not change its nature. If a particular piece of land lies inside the compound of a house it must be deemed to have been settled with the owner of house and the mere fact that that land is being used for a different purpose than the house, would not take away the character of its being appurtenant to the house. Even though a bazar is held on the land in dispute yet it being a part of the compound of a bigger house of the plaintiff the court below was right in treating it as appurtenant to the plaintiff's house. 8. So far as the question of law relating to the right of realisation of tahbazari dues goes, Sec. 6 of the Act-extinguished all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries in hats and bazars and melas. At the same time under Sec. 9 the site of the buildings and the land appurtenant thereto, was deemed to have been settled with the occupier by the State Government. There can, therefore, be no two opinions that the land in dispute being appurtenant to the plaintiff's house, the site was deemed to have been settled with the plaintiff. The only question is whether the realisation of tahbazari dues is a consequence of the exercise of the proprietary right or the exercise of the possessory right. The contention of Sri H.N. Seth is that it is only in the exercise of proprietary right that such dues are realised and consequently the plaintiff was rightly refused a decree. I am unable to accept his contention. A perusal of the plaint will go to show that in paras 10 and 11 of the plaint the plaintiff specifically made out that the bazar was held on a part of the residential building of the plaintiff i.e. in its compound which was appurtenant to the said building. It was also stated that the disputed land shall be deemed to have been settled with the plaintiff by the State Government. It was also stated that the disputed land shall be deemed to have been settled with the plaintiff by the State Government. These paras make out that the suit was filed in the exercise of the plaintiff's possessory title and the tahbazari dues were claimed in the exercise of such a title. Possessory title of persons whose estate vested in the State Government under Sec. 6 having been protected under Secs. 7, 8 and 9 of the Act the plaintiff was entitled to a decree, particularly when the rights claimed are not inconsistent with the possessory title. 9. This view is further supported by the amendment which has been made in Sec. 117(vi) of the Act. It is true on the date the suit was filed the State Government had the power to issue a notification to vest hats, bazars and melas held on land covered by Sec. 9 of the Act in the Gram Sabha of the circle but this vesting could only relate to the vesting of the proprietary rights and not to possessory rights. I do not agree with the learned counsel that after a notification under Sec. 6 and in view of the provision of Sec. 9, the State Government could dispossess or take away the right of realisation of that tahbazari the site of which was settled with the ex-zamindar under Sec. 9 and vested in the Gram Sabha. What the State Government could not do itself it could not be done by the Gram Sabha. Even though the expression "or any land referred to in Sec. 9" was added in Cl. (vi) of Sec. 117 of the Act later yet this only means the recognition of an existing right in favour of the persons who were in possession of the land. I do not agree with Sri Seth that prior to the amendment the State Government or the Gram Sabha could exercise the possessory right of realising tahbazari dues. 10. In the result, the appeal must succeed and the plaintiff-appellant must also be granted an injunction. 11. The appeal is allowed and the plaintiff's suit is hereby decreed with costs throughout. Leave is refused.