9 SCR 266 The following Order of the Court was delivered This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made in Second Appeal No.
The appellant had filed the suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of 10 feet/65 feet land towards east of his house No.
He had enclosed the disputed property by putting up a wall using it for poultry farming and during summer for sleep in the open area.
It is also an admitted position that in the sale deed executed by the respondents vender, i.e., S.W. Lawrence, there is a clear recital, which binds the respondent, that the appellant was in possession of the disputed property.
Both the trial Court and the appellate Court found that the appellant was in possession of the disputed property and in enjoyment thereof they also held that he per fected title by prescription.
15/45 situated in Kanpur, According to him, he purchased the plot No.
1252/73 dated November 30, 1980.
15/45 from the Church under a sale deed in year 1937 and ever since has been in possession and enjoyment of his property.
15/43.
The respondent has pleaded that the respondents predecessor in title by name S.W. Lawrence had purchased plot No.
The plea of payment of najrana and of becoming owner was given up.
He later on claimed to have purchased plot No.
It is also his case that he had paid najrana to the Church and became its owner.
15/44 from the church in 1965, and as owner of the property, was in enjoyment of the property.
1996 Supp.
He companytended that numberperpetual injunction companyld be granted against him, he being a true owner.
