DEV PRASAD MISHR Vs. ONKAR AWASTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) Mrs. Renu Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that both the courts below are absolutely unjustified in dismissing the civil suit by holding that plaintiff is encroacher upon the suit land by recording a finding which is perverse to the record ignoring the fact that he is in settled possession of the suit land since 1948 therefore, he was entitled for decree of permanent injunction. As such, the second appeal involves substantial question of law for determination.

(3.) Plaintiff filed a bare suit for permanent injunction stating inter alia that he is in possession of suit land bearing Khasra No. 511/1 area 6930 sq.ft. since 1948 along with his father, and the defendants are interfering with their possession therefore, they be restrained from interfering with his possession. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement stating inter alia that suit land is the Nistar land used by the villagers in which Tahsildar has already passed an order sending him in to civil jail holding him to be an encroacher and the appeal and revision preferred by the plaintiff againt that order, has already been dismissed by higher revenue authorities, as such the suit deserves to be dismissed.