KELLA @ KARNAIL SINGH Vs. GURNAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal, filed by defendant -appellant under Section 100, C.P.C., the appellant is challenging the concurrent finding of fact arrived at both by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Hanumangarh vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 24/07 and Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Pilibanga vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2005 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 9/02, whereby, the learned appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent -plaintiff and it is ordered that the appellant (herein) shall hand over possession of the plot/house in question to the plaintiff -respondent.

(2.) BEFORE the trial Court, respondent -plaintiff filed suit for eviction and injunction on the basis of patta issued in his favour on 116.09.963 by the Gram Panchayat, Amarpura Rathan, measuring 68 ft X 100 ft. It is submitted by the plaintiff before the trial Court that he is owning patta which is issued in his favour and upon that he is entitled for decree of eviction and injunction against the defendant -appellant.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court has wrongly recorded the finding that the plaintiff has proved the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat, Amarpura Rathan. The main contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the document which is exhibited prior to ex parte decree cannot be read if it is accepted later on after setting aside the ex parte decree, therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court is perverse and has no foundation to stand in the eye of law.