Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) CM No. 2915 -C of 2014 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 35 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. CM stands allowed. Main Appeal
(2.) THIS order of mine will dispose of two regular second appeals by a common judgment as common question of law and facts are involved therein. The plaintiff -appellant has filed the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff -appellant with regard to injunction, has been decreed and upheld by the Appellate Court but the relief qua declaring them to be owners of the property in dispute, has been rejected. Mr. S.N. Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that both the Courts below have committed perversity in misreading the pleadings much less a documentary evidence and branded the appellant as a tenant whereas from the perusal of the jamabandi, the appellant has not been shown to be as tenant. He has further submitted that the plaintiff -appellant did not claim any relief of declaration qua ownership by way of adverse possession except by giving a passing reference in paragraph 7 of the plaint yet the Courts below have formed an opinion that plaintiff -appellant had claimed the relief of declaration on the basis of long possession of law of prescription.
(3.) ON going through the contents of the plaint, this Court has found that no relief of declaration claiming ownership by way of adverse possession, much less, even the declaration qua ownership under the Occupancy Act, has been claimed. Therefore, in this regard on the basis of the pleadings even no issue was framed.;