MOHAN LAL @ MALLU AND ANOTHER Vs. HANUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

(2.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2011 passed by learned VIIth Additional Civil Judge (JD), Gonda in Regular Suit No.463 of 2002 by which plaintiffs suit for injunction was decreed with costs and site plan prepared by the Commissioner was made part of the decree. The civil appeal no.116 of 2011 against the said judgment has been dismissed.

(3.) A very brief point is involved in this appeal. The dispute relate to sahan land which has been decided by the Courts below on the strength of oral evidence led by the parties and its correct appreciation. Sole point argued on behalf of the learned counsel for appellants was that the learned Courts below have wrongly decreed the suit without support of any documentary evidence. There is nothing on the records nor learned counsel for appellants could show that the records were available which were not filed by the plaintiff. The requirement of Sec. 60 of Evidence Act is that oral evidence must be direct which is established in this case with all force.