- (1.) Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the suit property had been mortgaged with him by defendant No.1 Tara Bai for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- in the year 1974. The possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff in pursuance of the mortgage deed. Thereafter, defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- . Defendants were interfering in his peaceful possession. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff.
(2.) Defendants, in their written statement, averred that defendant No.1 Tara Bai was the owner of the suit property. The said land had never been mortgaged with the plaintiff. Defendants were owner in possession of the suit land.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property in dispute as alleged OPP. 2. Whether the suit land was mortgaged with the plaintiff as alleged OPP 3. Whether defendant No.1 agreed to alienate the property in dispute to the plaintiff as alleged OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for OPP 5. Whether the suit is bad as per principle of res judicata OPD 6. Whether no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit OPD 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form OPD 8. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed as per provisions of Section 10 of CPC OPD 9. Whether the suit is time barred OPD 10. Whether the defendants are entitled to the special costs OPD 11. Relief." Parties led their evidence in support of their case.;