Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,r.2(3),S.10

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,r.2(3),S.10

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 9 & 54---Suit for possession and declaration---Claim of plaintiff was that he was in occupation of plot in dispute from 1969 and he had raised construction thereon--Plaintiff had alleged that predecessor-in-­interest of defendants who got ownership certificate in respect of said plot in his name fraudulently, had tried to interfere with his possession---Plaintiff had sought a decree for possession on the ground that since he had been in possession of plot in dispute and had raised construction thereon, it was he who was entitled to be granted its ownership certificate---Defendant, in his written statement, denied claim of plaintiff---Both the Trial Court and Appellate Court had concurrently dismissed the suit---Validity---Important issue in the case was issue which was to the effect as to whether "Sanad Malikana" issued in favour of defendant was result of fraud, and collusion and thus ineffective upon the rights of plaintiff---Defendant did not put in appearance in the court and instead his special attorney appeared as witness of defendant---Said attorney admitted claim of plaintiff in his statement with regard to possession of plot and construction raised by the plaintiff thereon Record had proved that plaintiff, who was in possession of plot in dispute, was dispossessed by defendant---Impugned s and decrees, could not have been passed dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for the reason that all contentions of the plaintiff stood proved-High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, reversed the findings recorded by two courts below on the issue and decided said issue in affirmative---Another issue which dealt with the question of dispossession of the plaintiff, had deliberately been avoided to be answered by both the courts below---Both courts below had failed to read evidence on record---Speaking orders were passed which were based on evidence holding that plaintiff, who had been in possession of plot in dispute, was dispossessed and possession was ordered to be restituted---Both impugned s and decrees were set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed as prayed for. Nemo for Petitioner.…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492