The present neighbours were examined by the plaintiff for the purpose of establishing that the plaintiff had owned and possessed the suit property.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30 6 1982 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Second Appeal No.
It may be stated here that the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had purchased an open plot on 22 2 1978 by registered sale deed from Bashir Khan and obtained possession of the same.
208 of 1982.
The lower appellate companyrt by the judgment dated 22 3 1982 allowed the said appeal and dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish title to the suit property and possession of the same.
The plaintiff relied on the title of the suit property on the basis of such purchase by the registered sale deed Ex.
In order to establish possession of the suit land the plaintiff stated that in the suit land there was a latrine.
The trial companyrt decreed the said suit and the defendant respondent thereafter preferred Civil Appeal No.
The plaintiff appellant thereafter preferred the said second appeal before the High Court and as aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed.
The boundaries were mentioned in the sale deed.
53 A of 1981 in the Court of the First Additional Judge, Mandsaur.
P/1 and a map also annexed to the sale deed being Ex.
The lower appellate companyrt has indicated that in the sale deed existence of a latrine was number mentioned.
As the plaintiff failed to establish the title to the suit land and possession in respect thereof by leading companyvincing evidence, the lower appellate companyrt dismissed the said suit.
Such questions of fact had been determined by the lower appellate companyrt and since such determination by the lower appellate companyrt was number erroneous, numberinterference against finding of fact in second appeal was called for, Mr Bagga, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the names of the owners of boundary lands mentioned in the deed of gift and such names in the sale deed differed because of a long lapse of time.
The plaintiff appellant instituted a suit being Civil Suit No.
The lower appellate companyrt has indicated in the judgment that the boundaries as mentioned in the sale deed, do number tally with the boundaries mentioned in the deed of gift on the basis of which Bashir Khan, the vendor of the plaintiff had obtained the suit property from the admitted owner.
432 A of 1980 in the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge Class II, Mandsaur M.P. for declaration of title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent Nagar Palika, Mandsaur from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land.
The High Court held that whether the suit property had been purchased or number and whether or number the plaintiff had possessed the same, were questions of fact.
