SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these four appeals, facts are similar and common questions of law are involved, as such, the same are being dis posed of by this common judgment. Sec ond Appeal No. 587 of 2001 (Old No. 551 of 1987), is directed against the judg ment and decree dated 27. 10. 1986, passed by Additional Civil Judge, Nainital in Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1984, whereby said appeal is dismissed affirming the dismissal of civil suit No. 52 of 1978 by the trial court (Munsif, Kashipur ). Second Appeal No. 588 of 2001 (Old No. 552 of 1987), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27. 10. 1986, passed by Additional Civil Judge, Nainital, in Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1984, dismissing the same and affirming the dismissal of suit No. 50 of 1978, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Kashipur ). Second Appeal No. 589 of 2001 (Old No. 550 of 1987), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27. 10. 1986, passed by Additional Civil Judge, Nainital in Civil Appeal No. 120 of 1984, dismissing the same and affirming the dismissal of suit No. 49 of 1978, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Kashipur) and Second Appeal No. 590 of 2001 (Old No. 540 of 1987), is di rected against the judgment and decree dated 27. 10. 1986, passed by learned Ad ditional Civil Judge, Nainital, in Civil Ap peal No. 122 of 1984, dismissing the same and affirming the dismissal of suit No. 51 of 1978, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Kashipur ).

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the par ties and perused the lower court record.

(3.) IN Second Appeal No. 589 of 2001, brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/appellant Subhash Mittal insti tuted suit No. 49 of 1978 with the plead ing that he is recorded tenure holder (Bhumidhar) of plot No. 155 M measur ing area of 15 Acres, situated in Village Kharmasi, Tehsil Kashipur. It is further pleaded in the plaint that he is in posses sion of the land through his Manager K. K. Bhatia, who is cultivating the land on his behalf. It is further pleaded that the de fendants/respondents forcibly want to take possession of the land in suit and they made an attempt in this regard on 22. 03. 1978. With these pleadings suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunc tion restraining the defendants/respond ents from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in suit No. 49 of 1978.