MUNESAR Vs. BHAROSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed trees standing in plot no. 236/3 new plot no. 290.

(2.) IT appears that the plaintiff had claimed title to the disputed plot no. 236/3 new plot no. 290 and had alleged that the disputed trees stood therein, and in the alternative it had been alleged that if the disputed trees did not stand over plot no. 290, and stood on plots nos. 291 and 292, the plaintiff had got right and title to the disputed trees by virtue of being owner due to adverse possession for more than 12 years.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has contended before me that the lower appellate court has acted illegally in holding that the disputed trees stood in plot no. 236/3. According to him, in view of the confirmed map and report of the Commissioner, the disputed trees stood in plots nos. 291 and 292, and in the view of the matter the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the disputed trees stood in plot no. 236/3, is due to the misappreciating evidence on record.