BASHIR AHAMED Vs. FARZANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Bashir Ahamed, having been non-suited by both the courts below, has filed this second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff claimed relief of possession of part of the suit land and claimed permanent injunction regarding the remaining suit land. Defendant no.1 is widowed daughter-in-law of the plaintiff, whereas defendant no.2 is her father and defendants no.3 to 6 are her brothers. Relationship between the parties is not disputed. The plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of the suit land. He alleged that he was forcibly dispossessed from part of the suit land in April 2007 by contesting defendants no.1 to 6. Accordingly, plaintiff sought relief of possession of said part of the suit land. He also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the remaining suit land.

(3.) Defendants no.1 to 6 contested the suit and broadly denied the plaint averments. It was pleaded that about ten years earlier, there was family settlement between the plaintiff and his both sons Adnan and Afzal (husband of defendant no.1) and according to family settlement, husband of defendant no.1 came in possession of part of the suit land mentioned in the written statement and after his death, defendant no.1 is in possession thereof. Various other pleas were also raised.