PURAN CHAND Vs. RAM KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the respondent -plaintiff before the learned City Judge, Jammu seeking restraint on the appellants -defendants not to interfere with the land measuring 2 kanals 11 marlas and 1 kanal situated at khasra no. 314 and 22 min. The suit was based on the fact that plaintiff had purchased land vide two agreements to sell executed on 29.11.1984 and 11.1.1986, details of which is given herein above. Consequently the plaintiff was also put in possession of the land in question.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the appellants -defendants on the ground that the agreements to sell were cancelled by a subsequent deed and they have also denied that the plaintiff -respondent was ever put in possession of the property and the possession of the land is with them, which is supported by the entries recorded in revenue records. The suit was dismissed by the learned City Judge, Jammu vide order dated 30.12.1997 on merits on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish his possession on the suit property. The learned trial court also held that contract to sell was not proved by the plaintiff -respondent.

(3.) THEREAFTER , an appeal came to be filed by the plaintiff -respondent against order dated 30.12.1997 before the learned District Judge, Jammu, who allowed the same and set aside the order dated 30.12.1997 passed by the learned trial court vide order dated 20.9.1999. The findings of the appellate court were clearly based on the fact that defendant No.2 had made admission regarding execution of contract to sell, as such, no further proof was required to prove the documents. The learned appellate court also found that since handing over of the possession was admitted, therefore, no further proof is required for the same. It is in these circumstances the present appeal has been filed before this court. At the time of admission of this appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed by this court for determination: -