DAULAT RAM Vs. DARSHANU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record. Plaintiff- respondent Darshanu Devi filed a suit for possession of land bearing khasra No. 444/279 against the appellant- defendant, alleging that earlier she had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of two khasra numbers, i.e. khasra No. 444/279 and 446/281, seeking issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, against the defendant- appellant from interfering in her possession over the said two khasra numbers, but the court decreed the suit only in respect of khasra No. 446/281 and as regards the other khasra number, i.e. 444/279, which is the subject matter of the present lis, it was held that the same was in possession of the appellant-defendant and therefore, injunction could not be issued against him and that the only remedy was to recover the possession of said khasra number by due process of law. Therefore, the respondent- plaintiff filed the suit for possession of khasra No. 444/279.

(2.) APPELLANT -defendant contested the suit and claimed that he himself was the owner of the suit land, having acquired it by way of adverse possession. The trial court has rejected the plea of the appellant- defendant and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent- plaintiff. Appeal filed by the appellant- defendant in the court of District Judge, stands dismissed. Hence the second appeal.

(3.) AS regards the first contention, the learned counsel has not been able to point out, how on account of the hearing of the first appeal by the same person, who decided the earlier suit as the Presiding Officer of the trial court, has resulted in miscarriage of justice, or even caused prejudice to the appellant The judgement delivered in the earlier suit had admittedly attained finality. In the said judgement, a categorical finding was recorded that the respondent- plaintiff was the owner of khasra No. 444/279, but the possession was with the appellant- defendant and in case the respondent- plaintiff so desired, she could dislodge the appellant- plaintiff from possession by due process of law. The two courts below have relied upon this judgement. In case there were any other Presiding Officers of the appellate court, then the one who has decided the appeal, he would have also used the judgement delivered in the previous case as a piece of evidence in the same way, as has been done by the Presiding Officer, who has decided the appeal.