MOHIT KOIRY Vs. DHANRAJIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHIT Koiry filed the suit claiming the disputed land as his Bhumidhari. It has been alleged in the suit that the defendant Mst. Dhanrajiya wrongly refuted the agreement and succeeded in obtaining withdrawal of Bhumidhari certificate granted to her after the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the withdrawal of Bhumidhari sanad was not binding upon the plaintiff and that the defendants threatening to interfere with the plaintiff's possession over the disputed land, hence the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession.

(2.) THE defence in the suit was that the plaintiff had no cause of action and that the plaintiff was trying to grab the disputed land, therefore, he succeeded in obtaining Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of the disputed land by presenting an unknown woman and got a forged and fictitious sale deed in his favour and that the plaintiff was neither Bhumidhar nor in possession of the disputed land and various other pleas were taken to negative the claim of the plaintiff as is evident from the issues framed in the judgment of the trial court.

(3.) BEFORE me it has been stressed that the appellate court failed to compare the thumb mark of the defendant available in the case with the thumb mark in the Register maintained by the Registration Department. In my opinion the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant has no substance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The perusal of the impugned judgments does not indicate any valid reason as to why the original sale deed was not filed in the case specially when it was the basis of the plaintiff's title. Secondly, I also agree with the observation of the lower appellate court that there was no justification for moving an application at the appellate stage for summoning the Register No. 8 of the Registration Department and for bringing expert opinion on the record. When the appellant's application had been rejected for bringing expert opinion on the record and summoning Register No. 8 of the Registration Department there was no material before the appellate court for com- parision of the thumb mark of the defendant on the sale deed with the admitted thumb mark available in the suit.