SAZID Vs. ALAUDDIN AND 3 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 26.9.2007. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent. Trial court for the purposes of adjudication of the suit framed 5 issues. Issue no.1 was framed on the question as to whether plaintiff-appellant is the owner of the suit property on the basis of evidence brought on record. Trial court returned a finding that the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to establish his right over the suit property. It has further been noticed by the trial court that the plaintiff-appellant in connection with his employment was otherwise living in Delhi and he was not in possession for many years upon the suit property. In view of the finding that plaintiff-appellant had no right over the suit property, the suit filed for cancellation of sale deed has been dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court has been affirmed in appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has taken the court through the judgment and decree of the courts below in order to contend that the conclusions and findings returned by the courts below are perverse and that plaintiff-appellant is in possession and was the owner of the suit property.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the materials brought on record, this Court finds that the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to show any perversity in the finding returned by the trial court and the plaintiff has failed to establish his ownership over the suit property. The finding returned in this regard has already been affirmed in appeal. Such finding based upon appreciation of evidence brought on record is a finding returned on fact, which is not required to be reappraised in the present appeal, considering scope of the proceedings under Sec. 100 CPC. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the first substantial question framed in the memo of appeal that in the absence of finding returned that defendant no.2 and 3 were owners of the suit property, the suit could not be dismissed, cannot be sustained for the reason that it is for the plaintiff-appellant to establish first his right over the suit property before he can be heard in opposition to the rights of the defendants. Once finding has been returned that plaintiff-appellant had no right over the suit property, the substantial question formulated in this regard does not appear to arise. No other substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal.