TULJARAM Vs. CHUNNUSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these two regular second appeals are preferred by the plaintiff and the defendants fa o. S. No. 183/1985 on the file of the iii additional munsiff, gulbarga. The plaintiff who is the appellant in rsa. No. 1082/1990 presented the suit for a permanent injunction based on his possession of the suit schedule vacant space. The suit was resisted by the 2nd defendant who claimed to be the purchaser of the property in question under a registered sale deed and claimed possession as well as made a plea for an injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with his peaceful possession in his written statement as a counter-claim.

(2.) on such pleadings, issues were joined. The trial court framed as many as 7 issues. The issues which are necessary to be stated for disposal of this appeal as well as the connected appeal rsa. No. 1060/1990 filed by the defendants are as follows:

(3.) number of witnesses were examined for parties and numerous documents were also marked in support of the rival contentions. The plaintiff besides claiming permanent injunction based on possession had pleaded title by adverse possession but did not in furtherance of such pleading either get an issue raised or lead evidence. On issue No. 2 the 2nd defendant has established his ownership and possession as held by the trial court. It was, in that circumstance, that the trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the lower appellate court while not disturbing a finding on issue No. 2 in regard to ownership, nevertheless, came to the conclusion that defendant-2 was not in possession and therefore the trial court was in error in granting an injunction when he bad not proved possession. It is in that behalf rsa No. 1060/1990 is filed by the defendants against that finding.