(1.) THE facts for the purpose of this appeal preferred by the plaintiff who was successful in the trial Court and against whom the verdict has gone in the first appellate court are as under :
(2.) THE plaintiff appellant, a religious institution, claims to be the owner of the site and the constructions in dispute. The plea raised is that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff religious institution and the defendant. For the purposes of establishing relationship of landlord and tenant the plaintiff has placed reliance on Ex. P-2 which is a judgment rendered in previous litigation between the parties. In the earlier litigation the dispute was with regard to a piece of land measuring 12' x 45'. As the earlier litigation has material bearing on the facts of this case the same may be noticed.
(3.) THIS decision given by the trial Court was challenged in appeal. This was dismissed. The defendant respondent approached this court in S.A. No. 121/1968. This appeal was dismissed on 29.8.1968. A reference to the grounds of appeal is essential as it demonstrates as to how the appellant understood the verdict. It was specifically mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the defendant respondent is not a tenant and that the finding recorded in this regard is not correct.