- (1.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a Civil Suit No. 269/66 (50/76) for declaration and permanent injunction in the lower Court in respect of the property, in dispute, which was decreed by the Court of Additional Munsif No. 2, Bharatpur, (for short, 'the lower Court') vide its judgment and decree dated 10-5-1977. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the defendant before the District Judge, Bharatpur, which was transferred for its decision to the Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur (for short, 'the first appellate Court'). The first appellate Court vide its judgment dated 24- 4-1984 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court. Hence, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.
(3.) This Court, vide its order dated 31- 10-1985, admitted this second appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether the learned Judge misconstrued the document marked Ex. 3 and erred in holding that the same being unregistered can be looked into only for collateral purposes. (ii) Whether the finding of the learned Judge regarding ownership of the respondent on the disputed land is based on no evidence. (iii) Whether the finding regarding adverse possession of Shri Padam Singh is also based on no evidence.";