BANSI Vs. GURDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.1.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 99/1994. .Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ˜the plaintiff for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Amb on the allegation that the suit land was earlier in possession of one Santu son of Falla as tenant, who was father of the plaintiff. He used to pay rent to the owners. It is further alleged that after the death of Santu, the suit land came in possession of the plaintiff as tenant and thereafter she was in possession of the land as a tenant. The appellant -defendant (hereianfter referred to as ˜the defendant for convenience sake) resisted the suit of the plaintiff and filed a written statement. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on 27.5.1994. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Una. The learned Additional District Judge, Una allowed the appeal on 17.1.1997. The present appeal has been prefered against the judgment and decree dated 17.1.1997. The appeal was admitted on the folloiwng substnatial questions of law : - 1. Whether learned first appellate Court below erred in appreciating the provision of law applicbale, pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them in its true and correct perspective, thereby vitiating the impougned judgment and decree ?

(2.) WHETHER retrospective effect can be given by a statute when specifically it is not provided so in the said statute ?

(3.) WHETHER learned first appellate Court below erred in appreciating the oral evidence with special refrence to the statement of DW -3 Shri Hans Raj ?