MAHARAJ SINGH Vs. RAMRATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal under Section 100, CPC. Arguments on the question of admission heard.

(2.) THERE is a concurrent finding of fact of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the house in dispute and the land bearing Khasra No. 43 on which it is standing belong to plaintiff Ramratan as these were allotted to his father in the family partition and defendant Maharaj Singh occupied the house three years prior to the institution of the suit in the year 1985 with the permission of the plaintiff. On these findings the suit for possession has been decreed.

(3.) IN this second appeal it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the substantial question of law which arises for decision is whether the suit was barred under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in view of the "panch Faisla" dated 25-9-1973 (Ex. D-1 ). This question was the subject matter of Issue No. 1 before the Trial Court. The finding on this issue is that this "panch Faisla" has not been proved. It has also been observed by the Trial Court that it is unstamped, unregistered and it was not made a rule of the Court. The First Appellate Court affirming these findings has further held that this "panch Faisla" does not bear the signature of the plaintiff.