Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as learned Counsel for the Respondents who has appeared through Caveat at the admission stage.
(2.) THIS is Plaintiffs' Second appeal. Original Suit No. 678 of 1986 instituted by the original Plaintiffs since deceased and survived by Appellants for permanent prohibitory injunction was decreed on 2.12.2000 by Civil Judge (J.D.), Bansi, Siddharth Nagar. Against the said judgment and decree Defendants of the Suit (which term includes legal representatives of deceased Defendants) filed Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001. Additional District Judge (E.C.P.), Siddharth Nagar allowed the appeal through judgment and decree dated 8.7.2011, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the Suit of the Plaintiff. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court. The Suit was filed in respect of plot No. 180 -ga area 6 dhur (biswansis). Plaintiffs claimed that they had purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 29.8.1985. Defendants also claimed that they had purchased the property from another person through registered sale deed. The Plaintiffs did not file the sale deed or its certified copy. They only filed Khata, Khatauni showing their entry. The Trial Court itself held under Issue No. -1 that even though it was proved that Plaintiffs were owner of land in dispute but the evidence produced in respect of possession was extremely weak. Lower appellate court rightly held that after this finding suit for injunction could not be decreed. With the finding of the trial court that evidence in respect of possession led by the Plaintiffs was extremely weak, the Lower Appellate Court fully agreed. Lower Appellate Court held that plot No. 180 was quite a big plot and it was not proved by the Plaintiffs that it had been demarcated and even if demarcated where its sub plot 'ga' was situate. Lower Appellate Court also found that there was great variance in the map of the Survey Commissioner and the plaint map.
(3.) I do not find any error in the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court. Plaintiffs could not prove their possession over the specific property in dispute and they could also not prove that the specific property in dispute was the same property which they had purchased through sale deed dated 29.8.1985. It was utmost essential for the Plaintiffs to file the original sale deed which they did not do. Lower Appellate Court rightly held that the Trial Court committed a grave error by assuming that the property in dispute was plot No. 180 ga. The judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is factually as well as legally quite correct. Accordingly, it is confirmed.;