KARIMULLAH Vs. MAJEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal. Plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 214 of 1973 for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the land, more appropriately described in the plaint itself. According to the plaintiff the land was his Sahan and the defendants had no right to interfere with the possession over the same. The suit was contested by the defendants and it was claimed that the property was their Sahan. Before the Trial Court neither of the parties led any documentary evidence. They relied upon oral evidence only. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties proceeded to decree the suit and granted perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) Not being satisfied the defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 395 of 1975. Before the First Appellate Court an amendment application was made on behalf of the defendants and certain facts were sought to be introduced. This application was rejected vide order dated 24.3.1977 after recording a finding that these facts are contrary to that which were pleaded in the written statement earlier and, therefore, application in that regard was rejected. Consequently the application for bringing on record additional evidence was also rejected. The Appellate Court thereafter proceeded to decide the appeal and after noticing the various issues framed and on consideration of the evidence led by the parties it has been held that the defendant has not been able to establish his case. The appeal has accordingly dismissed vide judgment dated 20.4.1977. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant it is contended before this Court that the First Appellate Court has misdirected itself by referring to the weakness in the case of the defendants instead of referring to the case of the plaintiff. He submits that the Appellate Court should have examined as to whether the plaintiff has been able to establish his case and as to whether the findings recorded by the Trial Court qua the property were legally justified or not.