RAM NATH MALIK Vs. TULSI NATH MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal impugns the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 08.09.2006 by which the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the trial court dated 16.11.1999 which dismissed the suit of the appellant -plaintiff. Appellant -plaintiff is hence the appellant in this second appeal. Appellant -plaintiff has since died and is now represented by his widow.

(2.) I must state that the issues in the present case would have become difficult to understand inasmuch there are nine different khasra/Revenue Field Members and separate facts constituting various causes of action were pleaded by the plaintiff for these Khasra numbers, however, I note that the Appellate Court indeed had done a very thorough job in categorizing the lands under separate categories and thereafter discussing the issues as per lands under category -II & category -III which were in dispute. The necessary findings with respect to this land in category -II & category -III have thereafter been given.

(3.) A reading of the aforesaid paras shows that so far as category -II land is concerned, plaintiff -appellant claimed exclusive possession, however, this possession was neither shown in the revenue record nor as per physical inspection of the spot which was done by DW -3 Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Patwari (a Revenue Officer). Therefore, the appellant -plaintiff failed to prove his possession and accordingly the suit for injunction was dismissed. It may also be noted that appellant -plaintiff failed to prove that by virtue of a family settlement, he came into cultivatory and exclusive possession of this category -II land. Appellant -plaintiff laid out a case of partition, however, this aspect of partition having been effected was not proved. Even on the aspect as to whether there could be manipulation of revenue record to show possession not of the plaintiff but of the relevant defendants, Appellate Court notes that DW -3, the Revenue Official was not even cross -examined as to any alleged manipulation of the revenue record and which record did not show possession of the appellant -plaintiff.