RAMESH MOHAN MITTAL Vs. SURESH KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment dated 29.9.2005 wherein the judgment and decree of the Trial court dated 7.7.2004 had been confirmed. Vide judgment dated 7.7.2004, the Trial Judge had dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff namely Ramesh Mohan Mittal which was a suit for possession and mesne profits. The first Appellate Court had endorsed this finding.

(2.) Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking possession of a plot of 1500 sq. yards land measuring 60' x 225' forming a part of Khasra No.35/1 situated in the revenue estate of village Baprola. The Trial Judge on the pleadings of the parties had framed four issues. Two witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and one witness on behalf of the defendant had been examined. While disposing of issue nos.2 and 3, the Court had held that the identity of the suit property on which possession had been claimed by the plaintiff has not been established by him. The layout plan Ex.PX had mentioned the name of the colony as Nitin Enclave but the site plan proved through the version of PW-1 Ex.PW.1/A did not mention Nitin Enclave at all; it related to the revenue estate of village Baprola. Sale deed Ex.PW-2/1 relied upon by the plaintiff was also related to property situated in Village Baprola.

(3.) Further the version of PW-1, the draftsman, who had proved Ex.PW-1/A was not relied upon as even as per his own admission his knowledge of the case had been based upon instructions given to him by the plaintiff; no other independent verification has been done by him. Testimony of PW-2, the plaintiff himself was also found to be suspect. Identity of the suit property i.e. the correct description not having been established by the plaintiff suit was dismissed.