SANTOO Vs. JAGANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Santoo (since deceased) filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering in his possession over the land in dispute as shown in the said plan given at the foot of the plaint. The relief for mandatory injunction has also been sought directing the respondents to remove cattle troughs etc. The respondents contested the suit and they claimed the ownership and possession of the disputed land. The trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the disputed land. He has also failed to prove his title over the same. That the cattle troughs put by the respondents could not be removed. The trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by if the appellant preferred first appeal No. 30 of 1981. The respondents also preferred appeal No. 605 of 1981. Both the appeals were heard and dismissed on 18-8-1982. Therefore, the present second appeal has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Shri J. J. Muneer, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents at the time of the hearing of the appeal. However, I have gone through the entire record.

(3.) According to the appellant, the disputed property originally belonged to Nibar who transferred it by the sale deed to Sahabdin. The appellant purchased the property from Sahabdin by sale deed dated 30-1-1973 and he got the possession of the same. The first appellate Court after considering the evidence in detail has held that Nibar was the owner and in possession of the property in dispute. He further held that Nibar transferred the property to Sahabdin and he became owner of the property in dispute by sale deed. However, the appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court for the reason that the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Sahabdin on 30-1-1973 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant has not been proved. Sahabdin was examined by the plaintiff to prove both the sale deeds executed by Nibar in his favour and sale deed executed by him in favour of the appellant. The appellate Court has held that the sale deeds have not been proved in accordance with law as Sahabdin was totally illiterate. He has only identified the thumb marks of the sale deed, which is not possible, as he is not a finger print expert. That the sale deed should have been read over to him. That therefore, the execution of the sales deed has not been proved in accordance with law.