(1.) This is a defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the view taken by the learned lower appellate court in its judgment and decree dated 1.9.1979. The appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 6.8.1976 passed by the trial court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession of an open piece of land fully described in the head note of the plaint claiming that he was the owner as per the details given in the site plan Ex. P2. It has further been asserted that one Amolak Singh S/o Ram Chand was owner of the suit land. He is alleged to have sold the same to the plaintiff-respondent by executing a registered sale deed dated 17.12.1974 (Ex.P1). It is alleged that the defendant-appellant taking advantage of the absence of Amolak Singh the vendor of the plaintiff-respondent had taken possession of the land forcibly. The stand of the defendant-appellant was that the land in question was allotted to him by the custodian in the year 1956 and he is in possession of the same since then. The suit plan was also controverted being incorrect.
(3.) The trial Court recorded the findings that the claim of the plaintiff-respondent with regard to deriving title on the basis of the sale deed dated 17.12.1974 (Ex.P1) was not sustainable because the vendor of the plaintiff-respondent Amolak Singh could not have transferred the suit land unless he had shown to possess title of the same. It was accepted that Amolak Singh, PW-5 had executed the sale deed dated 17.12.1974 (Ex.P1) but there was nothing on the record to show that Amolak Singh had a valid title which could have been transferred to the plaintiff-respondent. No documentary evidence was produced before the court and the oral statements made by various witnesses were not believed. The analysis of the evidence by the trial Court emerges from a perusal of para 7 of the judgment and the same reads as under :