JAWAHAR LAL Vs. JAI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court vide which judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was set aside.

(2.) The plaintiff had brought a suit for permanent injunction claiming himself to be owner in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of an order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The learned trial Court by relying upon the jamabandi Ex. P-2 decreed the suit by holding that plaintiff has proved himself to be in possession over the land in dispute being co-sharer along with cosharers. The said finding was not challenged by the appellants before the learned lower appellate Court whereas the defendant respondents filed an appeal.

(3.) The learned lower appellate Court on appreciation of evidence and documents brought on record came to the conclusion that the learned trial Court had completely misread the evidence on record especial when the document Ex. P-2 showed that all the parties were co-owners and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the order of the Consolidation Officer has been wrongly ignored by the learned lower appellate Court on the ground that the Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to confer title on any person. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be sustained in view of the settled law that Consolidation Officer cannot decide the question of title. Even otherwise the plea of the plaintiff appellants that in view of the order of the Consolidation Officer the plaintiff was entitled to injunction cannot be sustained as even the learned trial Court has not held the plaintiff to be an exclusive owner and, in fact, held that he was merely co-owner with other co-owners. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, was right in dismissing the suit as the same wasprima facie not competent. Dismissed. .