NIHALA Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Nihala son of Harchand Appellant -Plaintiff (for brevity "the Plaintiff"), filed the suit against Raj Kumar minor son of Jeeta Ram Respondent -defendant (for short "the Defendant") seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that he is owner and in possession of the land to the extent of 320/672th share, out of the suit land, situated within the revenue estate of village Lehria, Tehsil and now District Fatehabad. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 2.12.1985.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the decision of the trial Court, the Plaintiff filed the appeal. He has also filed an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure The Ist Appellate Court, without deciding/touching it, dismissed the main appeal on merits, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 20.11.1986.

(3.) AT the very outset, the learned Counsel has vehemently urged that although the Appellant -Plaintiff filed the application for additional evidence to produce the original sale deed, bearing No. 37 executed on 3.4.1968, but the Ist Appellate Court, without deciding it, has illegally dismissed the main appeal on merits, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 20.11.1986.