- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission of second appeal. After hearing it appears that appeal may be decided at this stage. Therefore, I proceed accordingly.
(2.) Original Suit No. 152/1997 was filed for the relief of permanent injunction by plaintiffs for the property relating to plot no. 349/22 and its map was given alongwith plaint. Plaintiffs' ownership of plot no. 349/22 was not denied, but the defendants had disputed the identifiability of the disputed portion of the property on spot. Trial court had framed issues in which, inter alia, issues no. 6 and 7 related to identifiability of disputed property and as to whether disputed land is part of plot no. 349/22. After affording opportunity of hearing to parties, trial court had found that disputed property is not identifiable and it is not proved that disputed property is part of plot no. 349/22. On the basis of this finding, trial court had dismissed the original suit.
(3.) Civil Appeal No. 83/2012 was preferred by plaintiffs of original suit. After hearing this appeal, the first appellate court had dismissed the appeal. Lower appellate court had not framed formal points of determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, but instead taken issues framed by trial court. Out of 10 issues framed by trial court, first appellate court had taken these issues serially and decided eight of them in favour of plaintiffs-appellants. But two issues no. 6 and 7 relating to identifiability of disputed property were not taken for consideration by first appellate court and were not decided.;