SRI RAM Vs. CHAUTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the disputed land Both the courts below have concurrently held in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and decreed his suit. Aggrieved, the defendants have filed this second appeal.

(2.) Shortly, the plaint case was that at a private partition between Shankar (the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff- respondent), Hari (father of Mahengu, the appellant No. 2 herein) and Sri had taken place long ago and that at that private partition the disputed land came to the share of Shankar. Shri and Mahengu, the defendants in thesuit, were, however, illegally interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the land in suit and were trying to dispossess him therefrom.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellants. Their defence was that no such partition had taken place in point of fact. Both the courts below have, on an exhaustive consideration of the documentary and oral evidence on record, concurrently held that the private partition did take place as asserted by the plaintiff respondent. On this finding the suit of the plaintiff respondent was decreed by both the courts below. Before the lower appellate court two points were urged on behalf of the appellants. These were :