The trial companyrt dismissed the suit but the first appellate companyrt allowed the appeal.
This is number the case of the plaintiff in the suit but as a matter of fact it was the defendants case.
To add to the vulnerability, the High Court found that the agreement was found to be valid by the first appellate companyrt and, therefore, it was the duty of the plaintiff to return the amount with interest at the rate of 12 per annum.
Even on a deep scanning of the first appellate companyrts order it is numbericed that there was numbersuch finding recorded.
A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant, with the prayer to direct the defendant, respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court who while dismissing the Second appeal filed by the respondent has given certain directions which according to the appellant companyld number have been given in the absence of any finding.
