SURINDER KUMAR Vs. MADHU BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN support of the two review petitions against the common judgment, Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Senior Advocate has submitted that the finding in paragraph 20 of the judgment that there was no order of the SDM for measurement is erroneous and has relied upon ex. EWA/1 to submit that there was such an order by the SDM. We have perused the aforesaid document sought to be relied upon and find no such order by the SDM to the DW1 Patwari Manjit Singh to make measurements. Even if it was presumed that the Tehsildar had made measurements pursuant to an order of the SDM, the following finding of ours deal with the testimony of the Patwari manjeet Singh:

(2.) MR. Sethi, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in RFA no. 104/2006 submitted that whether or not the appellant had been able to establish that the properties are situated in khasra No. 93/3/1, the plaintiff/respondent has not been able to show that the properties fell within khasra no. 93/3/1 as claimed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff had to fail. In our view, the learned Additional District Judge had recorded findings that the properties in dispute fell within khasra no. 93/3/1 in paragraph 33 after an elaborate discussion of the evidence in the following terms:

(3.) MR. Sethi further submitted that the application for demarcation had been filed before the trial court and that had not been dealt with. This plea was never urged before us during the hearing of the appeal and was sought to be raised by filing an application to that effect on 24th March 2008 after the judgment was reserved on 13th March 2008. The application seeking demarcation was dismissed on 26th May 2008 by a speaking order. Thus, the plea for a re-demarcation which was dismissed on 26th May 2008 is now sought to be resurrected by the present review petition. Furthermore, the demarcation which was sought had already been done by the DW1 Patwari Manjit Singh whose evidence stood discredited by the following elaborate findings of the learned Additional sessions Judge affirmed by us in appeal.