BALWANT SINGH Vs. DHARAM PAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for the grant of the permanent injunction was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed in appeal.

(2.) THE Plaintiff filed the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction restraining Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering with his possession of the suit land. It was alleged that he was the owner in possession of the suit land. Previously, one Nanku cultivated the land as a tenant , but he relinquished his tenancy rights on October 23, 1970 and, thereafter he has been in cultivating possession of the same It was also alleged that Defendants Nos. I to 3 had no connection whatsoever with the land, in dispute. Since they were threatening to dispossess him forcibly and illegally; hence the present suit. The Defendants denied the allegations in their written statement. It was averred that the suit land was in their cultivating possession as tenants under the owners. The trial Court found that the Plaintiff was in self -cultivating possession of the suit land. In view of this finding, the Plaintiff's suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land and that the possession thereof was that of Defendants Nos. 1 to 3, as tenants. Consequently, the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the Plaintiff has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) ONCE it has been held that Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were not in possession of the suit land as tenants as alleged by them, then the Plaintiff's suit must succeed In view of the judgments produced by way of additional evidence, no meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the Defendants -respondents to upheld the judgment of lower appellate Court.