- (1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 18.5.1993, deciding two appeals, being Appeal No. 31 and 32 of 1978, which in turn were filed by the two sets of co -plaintiffs, against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dt. 19.8.1977, passed in Civil Suit No. 39/68, dismissing the same. Thus, these appeals relate to only one litigation, and involve common question of law and facts, and are therefore being decided by this common order. As observed above, the learned trial Court had dismissed the suit, and a look at the impugned judgment shows, that the learned Single Judge has affirmed that decree of the dismissal of that suit.
(2.) THE facts of the case comprise of a very very long history, and are based on very many proceedings, taken from time to time, by different authorities. The suit relates to two parcels of land, shown by figures "ABCD" and "EABGF". The plaintiff's being the state, and the U.I.T., claimed the property to be state property, i.e. Nazul land, having been placed at the disposal of the U.I.T., the other plaintiff; and the suit has been filed for recovery of possession of the land, along with the mesne profits, and pendente lite and future mesne profits. On the other hand the defendant No. 1 claims himself to be the owner of the property, under two Pattas, while the plaintiffs claim those Pattas to be fictitious and forged. So far the other defendants are concerned, it would suffice to observe, that they are the tenants of the defendant No. 1, and the real contest is between the plaintiff appellants and the defendant No. 1, and therefore, hereafter expression 'defendant or 'defendants' would mean only defendant No. 1.
(3.) THE suit was filed in the year 1965, on 22.12.1965, to be precise. The perusal of the record, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge, so also the learned trial Court shows, that voluminous documentary evidence has been produced by either side, comprising mostly of documents of antiquity. The learned trial Court framed as many as 15 issues. However, the perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge shows, that before him the parties were ad idem, rather expressly agreed, to the effect, that pivotal issue is issue No. 7; in the sense, that it is only if issue No. 7 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs, then, only, requirement of going into other issues may arise, otherwise all other issues will become only academic. The learned Single Judge has categorically recorded this statement more than once, and then, after going through the material, and discussing it thread bare, has decided the issue No. 7 against the plaintiffs, and in favour of the defendants, and therefore, found all other issues to have become of academic importance only, not requiring to be gone into.;