HRADESHWAR NATH Vs. NANDLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Anil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the caveator-respondents.

(2.) THIS first appeal from order has come up for admission today.

(3.) THE trial court had framed five issues covering the dispute, whether the plaintiff-appellant was the owner and title holder of the land in dispute over which Bamboo Grove situate, whether the valuation of the property in suit was assessed less and insufficient court fee was paid, whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, whether the plaint was barred by law of estoppel and acquiescence and whether the plaintiff is entitled for some other relief. All the issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the respondents. Before the trial court, the plaintiff-appellant has produced the documentary evidence, extracts from the revenue records and consolidation records to prove his case that the plaintiff-appellant was the owner of the land in dispute and the Bamboo Grove. He had produced before the trial court jote akar patra 5, akar patra-23, akar patra 45GA to 46Ga, intkhab khatauni (Extracts from the Revenue Record) relating to Mauja Dhubahi, true copy of khasra, jote akar patra 48GA, to prove his case that the land in dispute and the Bamboo Grove belonged to plaintiff-appellant and his name was recorded as owner in the aforementioned record and consolidation records. In addition to this, he had also produced himself and one Indraraj Misra as witnesses.