CHHAJJU SINGH Vs. SURINDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal, whose suit foe permanent injunction restraining the defendents from interferring in his lawful possession, has been dismissed by both the Coruts below.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit alleging that he was already owner of one-helf of the plot in dispute while the remaining one-half was obtained by him through decree by pre-emption. according to the plaint, the possession of the said one-half was obtained by him through decree by pre-emption. According to the plaint, the possession of pre-empion decree on July 12,1971. Thus, according to the plaintiff, he was owner in possession of the whole of the said plot. The defendants having nothing to do with the same are trying to construct a wall at point EF inorder to take forcible possession of the said plot ABCD. The plea of the defendants was that the wall in dispute was constructed by them much earlier after obtaining demarcation from the Patwari. The trial Court found that the defendants are in possession of the site in dispute and that they constructed the wall EF prior to the institution of the peresent injunction was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Jadge with Enhanced Appellate Powers affirmed the said finding of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has filed the second appeal in this court.

(3.) At the motion hearing,it was argued that the report Roznamcha Exhibit P 2 was admissible in evidence under section 77 of the Indian Evidence At being a public document and the courts below have erred in ignoring the same.