MEGH RAJ Vs. LUXMI DUTT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before going on to addressing the issues raised in this appeal, it needs to be noticed here that there is a delay of 85 days in filing it and though no notice was issued in the application seeking condonation of that delay, with notice having been issued in the main appeal itself, learned counsel for the respondents has also not raised any serious objection to the delay being condoned and consequently, the application is allowed and the delay of 85 days in filing the appeal is condoned, in view of the reasons given in the application, to the effect that the applicant is a poor person, residing in a village who was (as stated) assured by respectable persons of the village that the matter would be resolved amicably. Instead, however, the respondents in fact instituted proceedings for execution of the decree, upon which this appeal was filed.

(2.) Vide the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), they initially sought that a decree of permanent injunction be issued against the appellant herein, restraining him from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land, (the full details of which have not been given in the judgments of the learned courts below but from the records it is seen to be non-agricultural land fully described in four parts, in paragraph 1 (A) to (D) of the plaint).

(3.) Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-