RAM CHANDER Vs. BANWARI LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for the grant of permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed in appeal.

(2.) Banwari Lal, plaintiff-respondent, brought the suit on the allegations that he was the owner in possession of the house, in dispute, and as he apprehended interference with his possession thereof at the instance of Ram Chander and Gauri Lal, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who had no title to the said property; hence the present suit. It was averred that he had obtained the property from Ganeshi Lal who had died during the pendency of the suit. The suit was contested by Ram Chander defendant appellant who denied the plaintiff's title and possession over the property in dispute, as according to him, the same had been mortgaged with possession with him by Gauri Lal, defendant No. 2. The said Gauri Lal did not file any written statement of contest the suit. Ganeshi Lal, defendant No. 3, filed the written statement and supported the allegations made by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court found that the plaintiff had purchased the said house from Ganesh Lal under sale-deed dated December 28, 1971, Exhibit P-1. It was further found that Ganeshi Lal had no title to the said property and, therefore, the plaintiff could not be held to be owner thereof, as alleged. As a result, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that Ganeshi Lal, defendant, had the title to the disputed property and that the sale thereof, in favour of the plaintiff by him was valid. It was also found that there was no evidence on the record to show that Gauri Lal, defendant, ever dealt with the property, in dispute, before he mortgaged the same with the contesting defendant. In view of these findings, the plaintiff's suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant, has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that Ganeshi Lal, defendant, had no title to the property, in question, as to transfer the same in favour of the plaintiff and that the said finding has been reversed by the lower appellate Court arbitrarily. The learned counsel further contended that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and that the finding of the lower appellate Court in this behalf was wrong as the material evidence has not been considered.