LATAFAT HUSSAIN Vs. ABDUL JABBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the original plaintiff, for obtaining a decree for declaration to the effect that sale effected by defendant No. I, who is respondent No. 1 before me, Abdul Jabbar, in favour of present respondent No. 2, Ishtiaque Ahmed in respect of property No. 5358 including Barsati situated Kucha Rehman, Balli Maran, Delhi vide sale deed dated 4.4.1972 was incompetent, invalid, ineffective and inoperative qua the' appellant, with the further prayer that respondent No. 1 was liable to specifically perform contract made with the appellant dated 5.12.1971. From the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

(2.) The Trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant vide judgment dated 26.7.1976. Two separate appeals against the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court were preferred. The Additional District Judge reversed the Finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit Filed by the plaintiff on 30.8.1977. Aggrieved by the said dismissal the appellant Filed the present second appeal in this Court.

(3.) Mr. H C Sukhija, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the impugned order suffers from conjectures and surmises. He has contended that while passing the impugned order the first Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the relevant provisions of Indian Evidence Act such as Sections 22, 29,67,68,91 and 92 while reappreciating the evidence arrived at by the Trial Court taking into consideration the material placed before the Trial Court and evidence adduced by the parties. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the appellant has cited S V R Mudaliar (dead) by L.Rs. & ors. Vs. Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (dead) by L.Rs. and ors. AIR 1995 SC 1607.