RAMRATTI Vs. SEKHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' Second Appeal arising out of a suit for permannent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land. The plaintiff has claimed right in the disputed land as being Pichhwara of the plaintiff's house, whereas the defendants-appellants had claimed right in the disputed land as their Khalihan. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit but the lower appellate court has given judgment for the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate court the defendants have approached this Court in the above noted second appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has raised two questions of law for consideration. Firstly that the lower appellate court has acted illegally in relying upon the chak map prepared in a case which is still pending. It has been emphasised before me that the Commissioner, who had prepared the chak map, had not been examined in the suit giving rise to the present appeal, therefore, the appellate courts should not place reliance upon the map in its judgment.

(3.) I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and I have gone through the aforesaid rulings. I think that the appellate court has recorded categorical finding of fact against the defendants-appellants. Their case of claiming the land as Khalihan has been found as talse. It has also been found by the lower appellate court that the disputed land is Pichwara of the plaintiff's house and the same has been in possession of the plaintiff.