RAMEHAR Vs. BALWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge in her judgment dated 9.9.2003, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 21.8.2002. The learned lower Appellate Court in para 17 has noticed that contradictory stand has been taken by the plaintiff-appellant. It has been asserted that the defendant-respondent had never remained in possession of the plot in dispute. In the crossexamination he had admitted that the defendant-respondents had built a kotha and the boundary wall. His further statement is that there was a dispute with respect to this plot and he approached the Tehsildar. The plot was demarcated by the Tehsildar in 1994. There was no witness from the village which might have come forward to make a statement in favour of the plaintiff-appellant that the plot was ever demarcated. The report of the Kanungo has been simply tendered in evidence who has never been produced before the Court.

(2.) THE bare statement made by the plaintiff-appellant has not been regarded as sufficient to prove his possession for the purposes of permanent injunction. THE lower Appellate Court has also referred to the replication to show that there was an admission in the earlier suit. THE plaint has been produced as Ex. D-2 along with the boundaries and he had pleaded that he had raised a pucca room. R.S.A. No. 297 of 2004 Having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise. THE appeal is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed.