RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's appeal against the judgment of reversal. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court, however, the judgment of the trial Court was reversed in appeal by Lower Appellate Court.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts, as noticed in the judgment and decree, are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the property and also for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from selling, mortgaging, alienating, transferring and disposing of the same in any manner whatsoever. It was claimed in the suit that property was originally owned by one Banta Singh, who had sold the same, vide sale deed dated April 21, 1937, to the father of the respondent-plaintiff, namely, Shri Pritam Singh, who died in 1950. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-plaintiff were owners in possession of the property ever since then. After the death of his father, the respondent-plaintiff requested for change of ownership in his name, mutation though was entered but not attested by the Assistant Collector. However, thereafter respondent-plaintiff is being shown in the revenue record as 'Billa Lagan Tasaber Bai'. Still further the plea raised by the respondent-plaintiff was that the property in question was being let out to different tenants ever since it was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-plaintiff and in the year 1959, the same was let out to Karam Chand brother of Ram Asra (defendant in suit) vide agreement Ex. P-1. In defence, the appellant relied upon another sale deed dated July 23, 1990 executed by Iqbal Singh, one of the sons of Banta Singh, the original owner of the land, who had earlier sold the land in question vide sale deed dated April 21, 1937 to the father of the respondent-plaintiff. On appreciation of the evidence on record, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the original sale deed of April 21, 1937, executed by Banta Singh in favour of father of the plaintiff having not been produced in evidence, respondent-plaintiff cannot be declared to be owner of the property and the declaration as well as injunction prayed for by him was accordingly declined. However, lower Appellate Court, considering the totality of the circumstances and weighing the other evidence also on record to the effect that in other proceedings, the claim made by the appellant-defendant claiming ownership vide sale deed dated July 23, 1990 was disbelieved and still further ejectment application filed by the respondent-plaintiff against Karam Chand and Ram Asra was allowed by the Lower Appellate Court holding them to be the tenants of the property, accepted the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have perused the judgments of both the Courts below.;