RAMESH BEHL Vs. RAMJEE DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the appellant has urged that the judgments of the two fact finding Courts below is based on no evidence; the plaintiff must discharge the onus of proving his case which he has failed to discharge; in such an eventuality the Trial Judge having decreed the suit of the plaintiff which was confirmed by the Appellate Court is clearly a perversity raising a substantial question of law. Further the power of attorney holder PW-1 had no special authority authorizing him to depose on behalf of his father, the plaintiff, has not come into witness box and this was without any special reason; in the absence of which the suit of the plaintiff having been decreed again raises a second substantial question of law.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:-

(3.) Counsel for the appellant in order to substantiate his first submission has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in JT 2004(6) SC 556 Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal Vs. Badagara Jumayath Palli Dharas Committee & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC 737 Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale submission being that it is for the plaintiff to prove his own case and the weakness in the case of the defence does not entitle the plaintiff to any benefit. It is submitted that in the judgment reported in 162(2009) DLT 684 Mahesh Chandra Agarwal Vs. Rameshwar & Ors. it has been held that revenue entries are not by themselves sufficient to establish title; in the instant case plaintiff had no document of tile; both the Courts below had committed a gross illegality in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff on this "no evidence".