SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. RAM SINGH (SINCE DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these four appeals, facts are similar and common questions of law are involved, as such, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. Second Appeal No. 587 of 2001 (Old No. 551 of 1987), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1986; passed by Additional Civil Judge, Nainital in Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1984, whereby said appeal is dismissed affirming the dismissal of civil suit No. 52 of 1978 by the trial court (Munsif, Kashipur). Second Appeal No. 588 of 2001 (Old No. 552 of 1987), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1986, passed by Additional Civil Judge, Nainital, in Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1984, dismissing the same and affirming the dismissal of suit No. 50 of 1978, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Kashipur). Second Appeal No. 589 of 2001 (Old No. 550 of 1987), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1986, passed by Additional Civil Judge, Nainital in Civil Appeal No. 120 of 1984, dismissing the same and affirming the dismissal of suit No. 49 of 1978, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Kashipur) and Second Appeal No. 590 of 2001 (Old No. 540 of 1987), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1986, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Nainital, in Civil Appeal No. 122 of 1984, dismissing the same and affirming the dismissal of suit No. 51 of 1978, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Kashipur).

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case relating to Second Appeal No. 587 of 2001, are that plaintiff/appellant -Sudhir Kumar, instituted suit No. 52 of 1978, with the pleading that he is recorded tenure holder (bhumidhar) of plot No. 144 M measuring area 9.90 Acres, situated in Village Kharmasi, Tehsil Kashipur, District Nainital (now part of District Udham Singh Nagar). It is further pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff/appellant is in possession of the land through his Manager -K.K. Bhatia, who is cultivating the land on behalf of the plaintiff. Defendants/ respondents forcibly want to take possession of aforesaid land and they made an attempt to this effect on 22.03.1978. With these pleadings, plaintiff sought suit for permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents that they be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in suit No. 52 of 1978.