BALAK RAM Vs. BAGESHWARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed on record a report obtained by the appellant from the Tehsildar (LR), Anoopgarh by which the injunction application of the appellant was dismissed by the trial Court.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in possession of the land in dispute and his possession is required to be protected as the land in dispute was subject matter of the agreement to sell in favour of the appellant and agreement to sell was executed on 19th March, 1983.

(3.) THE trial Court took note of the entire material on record and categorically held that no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the appellant -plaintiff in support of his possession whereas the respondent has placed on record the documents, which are mentioned in page No. 4 of the order. It is relevant to mention here that the trial Court also observed that the agreement was not even attested by the notary public or by Tehsildar for which learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not the requirement of law for getting attestation of the agreement to sell from notary public or Tehsildar. It may be true that there is no requirement for attestation of the agreement to sell by the notary public and Tehsildar but to show that agreement to sell was authentic and executed by the execuant and on the date mentioned in the agreement, attestation by the Tehsildar or notary makes the document more credible. Therefore, this was one of the factors considered by the trial Court, which cannot be said to be an illegal approach or the approach is against any principle of law.