HEMANT GUPTA - (1.) THE defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the plaintiff's appeal was accepted arising out of the suit for permanent injunction and the defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff.
(2.) THE plaintiff - Bakhshish Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the taur measuring 5 marlas having purchased the same from Thakar Singh, Pritam Singh and Mohan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 28.12.1967. It was pleaded that the defendants have no right, titlle or interest in the suit property. R.S.A.No.1 of 1990 2 THE defendants, in the written statement, denied that the plaintiff was either owner or in possession of the suit property. THE parties went to trial on the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for? OPP 3.Whether the site plan is incorrect? If so, its effect? OPD 4. Relief. To prove its case, the plaintiff appeared himself as PW-1 and examined Lachhman Dass as PW-2 and Jogan Singh as PW-3 apart from producing map (Ex.P1) and extract of the field book (Ex.P2). The defendants did not lead any evidence in spite of several opportunities. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but the learned first Appellate Court, considering the evidence produced by the plaintiff, found that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. There is no rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The first Appellate Court found that no adverse inference against the plaintiff could be drawn by not producing the khasra girdawari or jamabandi of khasra No.1348. It is found that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based upon assumptions and presumptions, which is unwarranted under the circumstances of the case. Since there was no rebuttal to the evidence of the plaintiff, the suit was decreed.
(3.) BEFORE this Court, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from patent illegality or irregularity and that the evidence of R.S.A.No.1 of 1990 3 PW-1 Bakhshish Singh is not sufficient to return a finding that he was in possession of the suit property.;