MOHINDER PARTAP SONI Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession or dispossessing him from the property in dispute except in due course of law. He claimed to be in possession of 1300 Sq. yards of land for the last more than 16 years. Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 26.9.1988 dismissed the suit. While dismissing the suit, it recorded a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit and he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and that defendant No. 2 was proved to be in possession of the suit property i. e. of 900 Sq. yards. Appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge on 1.5.1995. Learned Additional District Judge in para II of its judgment came to the conclusion that if at all a piece of land measuring 900 Sq. yards was in possession of the plaintiff, then in that agreement he would have got recorded that he was in possession of that adjoining plot also in addition to his possession over the plot measuring 400 Sq. yards intended to be purchased by him. The appellate Court further recorded that the plaintiff entered into possession of 400 Sq. yards after executing an agreement in his favour and his possession over that portion was even admitted by the contesting defendant. Despite the above finding suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in toto by the Courts below, Plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Courts below has filed this appeal.

(2.) At the motion stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts, below after coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of 400 Sq. yards, his suit could not have been dismissed at least with regard to that portion.

(3.) On notice of motion being issued, defendant No. 2 has put in appearance.