Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4th March, 1989. A suit for eviction was filed on the ground that the defendants happen to be the licencee and their licences were terminated by way of notice which was duly served. The said suit was decreed. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal which was allowed on the ground that no specific and clear -cut finding with regard to the ownership has been recorded by the Munsiff in the Suit, therefore, it was felt necessary to remand the matter and thus remanded the matter to the trial court.
(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that the appellate court has misdirected itself and there is no right of the defendants over the land and there is also clear -cut finding in regard to the ownership and once the finding regarding the owner ship of the land has been recorded, then the order passed by the appellate court becomes inoperative. It is also submitted that the question regarding ownership of nazul land does not arise in this case.;