RAMJI PANDEY Vs. RAMESHWAR MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Both The plaintiff and the defendants are claim ing to be the owner and in possession of the house marked by the letters A, B, C, D in plot No. 541 For facility, Rameshwar who had filed suit No. 282 of 1967 will, hereinafter be referred as the plaintiff and Ramji Pandey who had filed suit No. 30 of 1968 would be referred hereinafter as the defendant.

(2.) THE plaintiff Rameshwar filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he is the owner of the house marked by the letters A, B, C, D vide a registered sale-deed dated 7. 2. 1956 purchased from Rama Misra and is in possession since then. THE plaintiff alleged that the mud walls shown by letters AB and AE, as indicated in the plaint map, had deteriorated and that the defendants were inter fering in the plaintiffs right in the reconstruction of the said wall. THE plaintiff alleged that the defendants had nothing to do with the said house and the land. Consequently, the suit for permanent injunction was filed restraining the defen dants from interfering with the plaintiffs right in replacing the walls marked by fetters AB and AE as shown in the plaint map.

(3.) THE plaintiff, Rameshwar Mali, filed two appeals which were allowed by the lower appellate Court and the judgment of THE trial Court was set aside and suit No. 282 of 1967 of Rameshwar Mali, the plaintiff, was decreed and a permanent injunction was issued restraining Ramji Pandey from interfering with the plaintiffs right in replacing THE walls AB and AE as shown in THE plaint map. THE appellate Court, after considering the matter and after reappraising the evidence, held That the Commissioner's report was not correct and that the surrender deed executed by Kishan Mali in favour of Bhoj Raj as well as the sale-deed dated 18. 3. 1950 executed by Bhoj Raj in favour of Rama Mishra were genuine documents and was liable to be relied upon and was admissible in evidence. THE appellate Court found that Bachan Mali was only an occupant of the house in question and that Kishan Mali had surrendered his occupancy right whole issuing the surrender deed. THE appellate Court fortified its finding on the strength of the endorsement made by Kishan Mali as an attesting witness in the sale-deed dated 18. 3. 1950 which was executed by Bhoj raj in favour of Rama Mishra and concluded that, if Kishan Mali, was the owner of the house in question, he would not have placed his signatures in the sale-deed in respect of the same house, as an attesting witness THE lower appellate Court further concluded that THE sale-deed of 1956 executed by Rama Misra in favour of the plaintiff, Rameshwar Mali, was a genu ine document and, since then, the plaintiff was in possession of the house which was fortified by a further finding that Rameshwar Mali, the plaintiff, had applied for reconstruction of the house before the Town Area Committee in which permission was granted by the Chairman, by an order dated 20. 7. 1957. In view of the finding that the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff appeared to be genuine and that the plaintiff had been in possession continuously THE suit of the plaintiff, Rameshwar Mali was decreed and the suit of the defendant was dismissed.