PNNIA SETHI Vs. KHETRAMOHAN MOHANTY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful Plaintiff in both the Courts below has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) THE suit land admittedly belonged to one P. Nageswar Rao. According to the Plaintiff, P. Nageswar Rao sold the suit land along with some other lands to the Plaintiff by the registered sale deed Ext. 4 dated 5 -1 -1943 and delivered possession of the same to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, since the date of purchase, has all along been in possession of the same. The Plaintiff, after purchasing the same, sold the house, which was on one of the plots purchased by him to some other person, but remained in possession of the suit and the rest - of the property purchased by him under Ext. 4 Defendant No. 3 purchased the plot of land adjacent to the suit property, from P. Nageswar Rao, and after purchasing the same he and his agents, Defendants 1 and 2, tried to forcibly construct a house on the suit property. Hence this suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from entering upon the suit land.

(3.) BOTH the Courts below, on an incorrect and illegal approach to the evidence on record and on a wrong notion of the law on the subject, have arrived at the finding that the Plaintiff has not been able to prove the execution of the sale deed Ext. 4 in this case, and only on the basis of that incorrect finding they hold that the Plaintiff's title to the suit land has not been proved. Moreover, the trial Court, without any convincing discussion and consideration of the evidence on record, and proceeding on the basis that the suit site being a vacant site is not capable of any physical possession, has arrived at the finding that the Plaintiff is not m possession of the suit site. The appellate Court has not given any finding regarding the possession of the suit site by any of the parties.