CHAND Vs. KIRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has come up in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial judge where by his suit for permanent injunction that he was owner in possession of the suit property was dismissed.

(2.) The facts :

(3.) The first appellate Court taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant failed to establish his title on the disputed property. The rent note Ex. P-2, is not a genuine document since it was not referred to in the plaint and it was not even mentioned in the list of reliance filed by the plaintiff-appellant along with the plaint or after the settling of the issues. The suit was filed on February 5,1974; issues were framed on August 8, 1974; the case was adjourned more than a one for evidence of the plaintiff for a few dates and the document Ex. P-2 saw the light of the day for the first time on March 13, 1975. The upper portion of the rent note was found missing and it couldnot be ascertained as to who had purchased the stamp paper for execution of the document bears the thumb-impression of the father of the plaintiff but the same was not got compared with his subsequent-thumb impressions so as to prove the genuineness of the same.