TIHARU Vs. UDAIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant was admitted for hearing on 11/10/2007 by formulating the following substantial question of law :-

(2.) The two plaintiffs namely Laxmichand Sahu and Tarachand Sahu filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction stating inter alia that suit land is part of Khasra No. 38/1 in which defendants have forcibly entered into possession and sown crops therein, as such, relief of injunction be granted and defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the suit land and if defendants are found in possession of the suit land then decree for recovery of possession be also granted in favour of the plaintiffs, which was opposed by the defendant by filing written statement stating that suit land is part of Khasra No. 28/2 and plaintiffs are neither title-holders of the suit land nor they are in possession of the suit land, as such, they are not entitled for decree as claimed.

(3.) Learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dtd. 23/12/2003 holding that plaintiffs are neither title-holders nor they are in possession of the suit land and also answered issue No. 4 by holding that suit land is part of Khasra No. 28/2 and defendant is in possession of the said land which is apparent from Commissioner's report dtd. 23/01/2002. On appeal being preferred by the plaintiffs, learned first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by granting the appeal vide impugned judgment and decree dtd. 12/09/2006 against which this second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant under Sec. 100 of CPC in which two substantial questions of law have been framed and set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.