TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction praying that the defendants be restrained from taking possession of the disputed plots No. 463 to 468 and further prayed that the said plots should not be allotted to the defendants or to any other person. The plaintiff alleged that he along with his brothers were owners and in possession of the aforesaid plots as well as the abadi as shown in the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant No. 2 is the Pradhan of the village and wanted to allot the disputed land to the defendant No. 1.
(2.) THE defendant No. 1 filed his written statement and contended that he had no concern with the land of the plaintiff and that he had been allotted 250 Sq. yards from plot No. 460 which is adjacent to the plots of the plaintiff. The defendant contended that the plot of the defendant is different from the plots of the plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence lead by the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit and restrained the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over plots No. 463 to 468 and the abadi. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of plot Nos.463 to 468. The trial Court held that the disputed land was not identifiable on the spot and that plots Nos.463 to 468 were identifiable and that plot No. 460 was not identifiable. The trial Court further found that the defendant No. 1 was in possession of 250 Sq. yards of plot No. 260 and that the plaintiff was not the owner of plot No. 460 nor was in possession and that the defendant was in possession of a portion of plot No. 460.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the decree of the trial Court, the defendant No. 1 filed an appeal, which was allowed by the judgment dated 7 -5 - 1976 and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The appellate Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the disputed land belonged to him. Aggrieved by the decision of the appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.;