JUDGMENT : 1. By means of this appeal, the judgment and order dated 10.6.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tehri Garhwal has been challenged whereby the Original Suit No. 1/2013 instituted by the appellant herein was dismissed with costs. 2. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties; before reproducing the issues framed during the pendency of the suit and their adjudication, it would be worthwhile to have a note of facts sans unnecessary details so to evince controversy between the parties. 3. It appears that in order to impart the basic education as well as to literate the hill children, a school under the name and style of ‘Rajeshwari Karuna School’ was founded by ‘Snigdha Cultural Centre’ having its Head Office at Delhi. For such purpose, the land in dispute was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 13.10.2011 from Devendra Beri, R/o Kando Bungalow, Patti Chhaijula, Tehsil Dhanolty, District Tehri Garhwal by ‘Snigdha Cultural Centre’ represented through one Pooran Saini. The sale deed pertained to Khasra No. 141, 143, 144 having area around 250 square metres (0.025 hectare), whereon a constructed building was also existing in the covered area of 200 square metres. With the passage of time, the surrounding land of Khasra No. 146 and 142 was also brought in the use of arranging the sports for the school children and, in the course of time, the applications were also moved to concerning Gram Pradhan as well as other concerned revenue officials including the Collector of the District to allot some surrounding land for the benevolent and charitable purposes of this school. So, the school is being run on a quite large land. The mutation was also got done in the revenue record in the name of ‘Snigdha Cultural Centre’, which by resolution of the society (registered under the appropriate Act) later on changed its name as ‘Hans Cultural Centre’. The amended memo of association dated 18.7.2012 is also available on the record under the seal and signature of the Registrar of Society. Since Kunwar Singh Chauhan and his foreign spouse Ms. The amended memo of association dated 18.7.2012 is also available on the record under the seal and signature of the Registrar of Society. Since Kunwar Singh Chauhan and his foreign spouse Ms. Lori Mc Fadyen were somehow associated with Snigdha Cultural Centre and they were regular local residents too, so, finding their suitability to run the school, an offer letter dated 30.3.2012 was given to Kunwar Singh Chauhan to work as the caretaker for the society because he had the potential to run from pillar to post in order to perform certain chores necessary for running of the school. On his acceptance, appointment letter dated 4.4.2012 was also issued to him on a reasonable salary, break up of which is available on the record. His basic salary was Rs. 10,000/-, dearness allowance was Rs. 3000/-, transport allowance Rs. 800/- and the house rent allowance was Rs. 6200/-, in all Rs. 20,000/- per month. This salary break up has been accepted by Kunwar Singh Chauhan (respondent no. 1) under his signature and such signature is quite the same which has been put by him on the affidavit, filed before the trial court, in the form of chief examination under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. Likewise, offer letter dated 31.3.2012 for employment was also given to his wife Lori Mc Fadyen by the authorised signatory Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma on behalf of the ‘Snigdh Cultural Centre’ and such offer letter was duly accepted by his wife under her signature and such signature is quite same as is put by her on the affidavit of chief examination filed before the trial court. She also accepted her appointment w.e.f. 2.4.2012 and her husband Kunwar Singh Chauhan was appointed on 4.4.2012 by the employer ‘Snigdha Cultural Centre’. Ms. Lori Mc Fadyen was appointed to work as ad hoc Principal of the school. Salary break up of Lori Mc Fadyen is as under: 4. Basic salary Rs. 20,000/-; dearness allowance Rs. 6000/-; transport allowance Rs. 800/- and house rent allowance Rs. 13,200/-, in all Rs. 40,000/-. 5. Such salary break up is also under the signature of the appointee, which again is the same as that of put by her on the affidavit of chief examination presented by her before the Trial Court. So, they both (respondents herein) cannot deny that aspect. 6. 800/- and house rent allowance Rs. 13,200/-, in all Rs. 40,000/-. 5. Such salary break up is also under the signature of the appointee, which again is the same as that of put by her on the affidavit of chief examination presented by her before the Trial Court. So, they both (respondents herein) cannot deny that aspect. 6. That apart, several teachers and other non-teaching staff were also appointed in the school in order to regulate its functioning. 7. Since the ‘Snigdha Cultural Centre’ was based at Delhi, hence it used to transfer the salary to each and every employee month-wise from its savings bank account no. 404292256 in the name of M/s Hans Cultural Centre (previously Snigdha Cultural Centre) to various bank accounts of the employees at Kempty (Mussoorie), where the school was situated. Details of such transfer issued under the signatures of Chief Manager of the Indian Bank, Delhi evince that Rs. 2,52,182/- were transferred during the month of April, 2012; Rs. 4,48,803/- during the month of May 2012; Rs. 1,17,684/- during the June 2012 and Rs. 3,60,752/- were transferred in the month of July 2012. 8. I think that since it is under the seal and signature of Chief Manager, therefore, the same is admissible in the evidence and it need not be proved by calling such Manager in the witness box. 9. The dispute commenced arising when the defendants’ intentions became dishonest and in order to grab the whole property as well as the school administration, they taking advantage of their local influence posed themselves as the proprietor of the school and ignored every directions of the plaintiff society. 10. In the above backdrop, Original Suit No. 1/2013 was instituted in May 2013 by the plaintiff seeking the mandatory injunction against the defendants to dispossess them from the school premises and to put the plaintiff society in the possession of the school and its properties. In addition to, mesne profit @ Rs. 5000/- per day with effect from the date of institution was also sought for, but the learned Trial Court after taking the whole evidence on the record, dismissed the suit. 11. Following issues were framed: (i) Whether the plaintiff society is owner of the property, in dispute? (ii) Whether the defendant no. In addition to, mesne profit @ Rs. 5000/- per day with effect from the date of institution was also sought for, but the learned Trial Court after taking the whole evidence on the record, dismissed the suit. 11. Following issues were framed: (i) Whether the plaintiff society is owner of the property, in dispute? (ii) Whether the defendant no. 1 and 2 are in illegal possession of the property, in dispute, as stated in the plaint by the plaintiff, since after termination of service of the defendant no. 1 from the school of the plaintiff society? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? 12. The suit proceeded, evidence adduced, learned Presiding Officer of the Trial Court heard the arguments and reserved the file for judgment on 9.4.2015, but framed additional issues during the course of such reserving of the judgment on 18.5.2015. Thus, additional issue no. (iv) was framed as under: (iv) Whether the Court has original jurisdiction to hear the suit of the plaintiff? If yes, its effect? 13. Further, the things did not stop here and on the date of pronouncement of the judgment on 10.6.2015, an additional issue, i.e. issue no. (v), was also framed to the following effect: (v) Whether Dinesh Kandari, S/o late Sri Jitar Singh Kandari, address Rajeshwari Karuna School, Kandi Bungalow (near Kempti Fall), Tehsil Dhanolty, District Tehri Garhwal is an authorised representative to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff society? If yes, its effect? 14. It is evident that after reserving the judgment on 9.4.2015, the learned Trial Judge pronounced the same after two months on 10.6.2015 and between this period, he framed additional issues on 18.5.2015 and on the top of it on 10.6.2015 when the judgment was so pronounced. Although it was unwarranted for the Trial Judge to keep the judgment reserved for such a long duration of two months and that was against the General Rules (Civil) as well as the various circular letters issued by the High Court from time to time, but even so, if the learned Court below deemed it proper to frame these additional issues in exercise of the powers under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, then it was mandatory for the Judge to render further opportunity to the parties to address their contentions on such issues. 15. 15. It appears that no such opportunity was ever granted to either of the parties and all the issues were decided against the plaintiff. This perverse approach of Learned Additional District Judge is reflective of basic procedural error and thus unacceptable in law. So, on this ground alone, the findings of the learned Trial Judge are liable to be set aside. 16. Now, I proceed to look to the illegality of these issues. Additional Issue No. (iv) 17. The Court below has expressed the view that since the property, in question, was agricultural land, finding its place in the revenue records like Khasra and Khatauni, hence, presentation of the suit was barred under Section 331 of ZA & LR Act. 18. I think the learned Court below has gone wrong on this aspect because even at the time of purchase of land in question, the total area was 250 square metres, whereagainst 200 square metres was covered by the buildings constructed thereon. So, it was not an agricultural land disregard of the entry of the land in Khasra and Khatauni and the failure of the land’s owner to take the declaration under Section 143 of the ZA & LR Act will not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court at this belated stage. Law in this regard has been propounded by the Uttarakhand High Court itself in Vipul Chand Dobhal v. Smt. Alka Jedly, 2002 (2) ELC 853, which was again relied by me while passing the order dated 3.12.2015 in Second Appeal No. 1081/2011. Even if the court below was not certain pertaining to the nature of the property in question then, as required by section 331-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the matter must have been referred for decision to the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division, after framing the issue in this regard, for the decision of that issue only and after receiving the findings of the Assistant Collector the court should have proceeded itself to decide the dispute accepting the findings of the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division on the issue referred to it. 19. 19. The learned counsel of the appellant herein has shown the letter of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhanolty addressed to the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal as well as the report of the committee constituting the Revenue Sub-Inspector, three Forest Range Officer/Officials manifesting that the land in question is covered by the building wherein the school is being run, no tree is present on such land. 20. In these circumstances, it would be quite unjustified to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court on this technical ground at this highly belated stage. 21. So, in view of what has been set forth above, I feel that the Civil Court was well competent to hear and decide/adjudicate the suit instituted by the plaintiff society. Accordingly, I answer this issue in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. Additional Issue No. (v) 22. Existence of ‘Snigdha Cultural Centre’, which later on changed in the name and style of ‘Hans Cultural Centre’, and the purchase of the land by such society have well been accepted by both the defendants in their cross-examination. That apart, they also accepted that after foundation of ‘Rajeshwari Karuna School’, the bus was also gifted in order to ferry the children from the remote and distant places. 23. The suit was presented by the ‘Hans Cultural Centre’ through its authorised representative Dinesh Kandari and resolution to that effect was also passed, which is also available on the record. So, denying the right of Dinesh Kandari to institute the suit on the conjectures that who is this Dinesh Kandari and he has not proved his address is quite unsubstantial. 24. Many a times, the salary of the employees of the school was transferred through NEFT (National Electronic Fund Transfer). Mr. Dinesh Kandari has been examined as PW1. He has well proved all the affairs and his status of authorised representative of the society to institute the suit. The credibility of his testimony stood intact even after facing long cross-examination at the hands of the defence counsel. So, there is no reason to disbelieve his statement in this regard. 25. Therefore, I overturn the findings of the Trial Judge on this issue as well and hold that Mr. Dinesh Kandari was well within his rights/powers to institute the suit, in question, against the defendants. Issue No. (i) 26. So, there is no reason to disbelieve his statement in this regard. 25. Therefore, I overturn the findings of the Trial Judge on this issue as well and hold that Mr. Dinesh Kandari was well within his rights/powers to institute the suit, in question, against the defendants. Issue No. (i) 26. From the facts highlighted above, it is abundantly clear that the land, in question, and the building thereon were purchased by the plaintiff society in order to run the school for the welfare of the children of the surrounding villages. In the revenue records also, the name of ‘Snigdha Cultural Centre/Hans Cultural Centre’ has been mutated by the revenue officials. The appointment letters and transferring of the salary of different employees through the NEFT from the account of the society held with the Indian Bank further strengthens the fact that the plaintiff society is the owner of the whole property, in question. So, this issue is decided in favour of the appellant plaintiff. Issue No. (ii) 27. As I have already mentioned that the dispute started when the defendants began to grab the school by way of showing their sole administration and ignoring the directions of the officers of the society. It appears that after grabbing the school and taking over the entire administration in their own control, the defendants changed the name of the school as ‘Garhwal English Medium School’, which in fact was none other but the ‘Rajeshwari Karuna School’ founded by the plaintiff society. Therefore, their services were terminated by the plaintiff. Such termination letters of Mr. Kunwar Singh Chauhan and his wife Ms. Lori Mc Fadyen dated 20.7.2012, under the signature of Neeraj Kumar Sharma for the ‘Hans Cultural Centre’, are available on the record. These have been issued on the letterhead of ‘Snigdha Cultural Centre’ and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma was the Secretary of the same. Such fact has also been proved by the documentary as well as the oral testimony of PW1. 28. So, this is a glaring example that how these defendants, who were merely the employees appointed by the plaintiff society to run the school, grabbed such school and its properties in a daredevil manner. Such fact has also been proved by the documentary as well as the oral testimony of PW1. 28. So, this is a glaring example that how these defendants, who were merely the employees appointed by the plaintiff society to run the school, grabbed such school and its properties in a daredevil manner. So, I also set aside the finding of the learned Trial Judge on this issue as well and hold that the defendants 1 and 2 are in illegal possession of the property, in dispute, as stated in the plaint by the plaintiff, since after termination of their services w.e.f. 20.7.2012. Relief 29. Since the findings on all the issues have been overturned by me, hence, this suit deserves to be decreed in toto. Consequently, I allow this appeal and decree the suit with costs throughout. Accordingly, defendants are directed to handover the peaceful possession of the school/property/land, in dispute, to the appellant within one week from today, failing which the appellant shall initiate the execution proceedings, wherein no objection or any application of the defendants shall be entertained by the executing court and the local administration without any further delay shall dispossess the defendants from the property, in dispute, and possession of the same shall be entrusted to the plaintiff/appellant through its authorised representative Mr. Dinesh Kandari or any other person duly representing the society of ‘Hans Cultural Centre’. 30. As regards the relief of mesne profit, I think though the defendants may not be so financially sound enough as to bear Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per day but they should not be left totally without incurring any financial burden for this illegal occupation of the whole school and enjoy the usufructs of the same for last almost five years. Therefore, I deem it proper to impose Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per day mesne profit they will be liable to pay w.e.f. 01.8.2012. I order accordingly. 31. Let the lower court record be sent back.