SURESH DUTT Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 17. 9. 1985 following question of law was framed in the instant appeal:-

(2.) BEFORE proceeding to pen the judgment I must record that the expression 'that finding' in the question of law framed appears to refer to the observation by the learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiff/appellant was in possession of the land in dispute in the year 1975. Indeed, as framed the question of law suffers from an error of syntax.

(3.) THE appellant was the plaintiff. He had sued for a decree for permanent injunction against the respondent alleging that he was the original resident of Village Jharoda Mazra Burari and was in possession of the suit land evidenced by a certificate of the Pradhan and an affidavit dated 1. 5. 1975. That the suit land ad-measuring 400 sq. yards was sought to be possessed by the defendants on the basis of some certificate obtained by them from the Custodian. That the defendants were attempting to forcibly occupy the land. Decree for injunction was prayed for to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land.