TEJLAL Vs. BIRENBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal 571/ 89 arises in the following circumstances. Plaintiff-respondent (since dead) filed suit for declaration of title as also perpetual injunction. Second Civil Judge, Class II, Balaghat by his judgment and decree dated 29.11.1986 passed in Civil Suit No, 398A/86 decreed the suit. Defendants aggrieved by the same, preferred appeal which led to registration of Civil Appeal No. 8A/88. By judgment and decree dated 29th June, 1989, 1st Additional District Judge, Balaghat dismissed the appeal. Defendants, aggrieved by the same have preferred this appeal. By order dated 17.9.1990, appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :

(2.) Second Appeal 572/89 has arisen in the following circumstances. Plaintiff No. 1 Tejlal filed the suit against the defendant Birenbai for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property in any manner. IInd Civil Judge, Class II, Balaghat by his judgment and decree dated 29th November, 1988 passed in Civil Suit No. 109A/84 dismissed the suit. Plaintiff, aggrieved by the same preferred appeal which led to registration of Civil Appeal No. 7A/88 and the IInd Addl District Judge, Balaghat by his judgment and decree dated 29th June, 1989 dismissed the appeal. Plaintiffs aggrieved by the same has preferred this appeal. By order, dated 17.9.1990, appeal has been admitted en the following substantial question of law : "Whether the Will (Ex. D1) was rightly disbelieved as being suspicious?"

(3.) From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the suit as also the appeal was disposed of by the Trial Court by a common judgment. In fact, in the present appeal, common question of law arises and as such, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.