Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
(2.) FACTS in brief of the present case as taken by the plaintiff -appellant in his plaint are that the land recorded as plot no. 3348 of Khewat No. 1/5 belongs to Ramesh Chand Gautam who has been granted a patta to the appellant on 16.4.1991 at a monthly rent of Rs. 10 per year to the appellant and he is in possession of the same on which constructed a boundary wall and doing the business of selling milk for which he has kept his cows and buffaloes. However, the defendant/respondent forcefully tried to dispossess the plaintiff/appellant from the land in dispute. So for redressal of his grievances, filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Original Suit No. 612 of 1991. Defendants/respondents in their written statement taken a defence that the land does not belong to the plaintiff, but without any authority of law, he has taken a possession of the same, constructed boundary wall, using the same for his business purpose. The trial court on the basis of the material on record/oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit, challenged by the plaintiff/appellant by filing Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2005, dismissed by judgment and decree dated 26.8.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Mathura.
(3.) IN view of the above said factual background, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Court, the same has been pressed on the following substantial questions of law: - "Whether the learned lower courts have misunderstood and misconstrued the oral and documentary evidence as adduced on behalf of the appellant while recording finding to the effect that the land in dispute is not identifiable on the spot? Whether for the purposes of fixing the identifiability of land in dispute the learned lower Courts have to get the survey map prepared and produced from the subordinate revenue authorities or in any case parties may be directed to produce the same or not -;