- (1.) THE present Appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant. Mohammed Yameen, plaintiff filed Criminal Suit No. 430/71 against Babu defendant in the Court of Munsif Kairna. In the aforesaid suit it has been claimed that the defendant be evicted from the shop in dispute which is mailed by letter H. L. S. and N. in the plaint map and the plaintiff be put in possession of the said shop.
(2.) THE defendant contested the said suit and filed written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed 6 issues. Out of the aforesaid issues, only issues No. 1,2, 3 and 4 are relevant for the disposal of this appeal: (1) Whether waqf Masjid Timir Shah is the owner of the property in dispute? (2) Whether the lease deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is valid? (3) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the property in dispute? (4) Whether the plaintiff has been dispossessed by the defendant on 7-10-1971? After considering all the questions simultaneously, the trial Court came to the conclusion that on the basis of the evidence, the land in dispute has not been proved to be the property of Masjid. Timir Shah and further came to the conclusion that no valid lease deed of the disputed land has been executed in favour of the plaintiff and that lease deed has been held to be illegal for want of registration. On the basis of above discussion, the trial court held that the plaintiff has not been successful in proving that he is owner of the land in dispute and it has further held that the defendant has been in possession of the land in dispute at least from 1-4-1968. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 74/1977 in the Court of District Judge, Muzaffarnagar. The said appeal was allowed by the First Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar by his judg ment dated 10-5-1977 and plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendant was decreed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the defendant/ appellant preferred this Second Appeal in this Court.
(3.) IN support of the appeal I heard the learned Counsel Sri G. N. Verma and in opposition Sri Rajeev Joshi. The appellate Court below has confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the lease deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was not valid and has further confirmed the finding also that the plaintiff has not been proved to be owner of the property in dispute. Thereafter, agreeing on the aforesaid issues the lower appellate Court, after appraising the entire evidence, arrived at the conclusion that the lease deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is not admissible in evidence for want of registration, and that the plaintiff has not acquired any right of the land in dispute on the basis of said lease deed, still, it is clearly found from appreciation of the evidence that the plaintiff has been continuing in possession of the land in dispute in the basis of the said lease deed since 1963 and the defendant has entered into unlawful possession of the land in dispute. On the basis of the said finding of fact, the lower appellate Court accepted possessory title of the plaintiff over the disputed land and held that the plaintiff has right to remain in possession over the land in dispute and after analysis of the entire evidence, further came to the conclusion that the defendant is in possession of the disputed land as a tresspasser and on the basis thereof it decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant and ordered ejectment of the defendant from the land in suit,;