KILKOTA Vs. SMT. PIYARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this defendants second appeal concurrent findings recorded by the courts below have been assailed.

(2.) Before making any submission on the merits of the appeal the learned counsel referred to three applications by him. The first application was moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code and was directed to be put up at the time of hearing of appeal. The application will be considered at the appropriate place in this judgement. The two other applications relate to addition of grounds in the memorandum of appeal and for permission to argue on some additional points than those formulated as substantial questions, of law at the time of admission of the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel I find no merit in the same. Even if these questions are allowed to be raised these will not affect the merit of the appeal in any manner.

(3.) Now on the merits of the appeal. The plaintiff respondent claiming to be the owner of House No. 168 filed the suit initially for injunction as the defendants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff and to alter the structure of two tiled roofed rooms in the disputed house. In Jan., 1981 while the suit was pending trial an amendment to add the relief of possession was sought as the defendants had allegedly occupied the disputed rooms forcibly.