A13 and A14 and failed to numbere that the particulars in companyumns 12 and 13 of Ex.
520/1 and 520/3 and also to ascertain how there has been an excess of extent of nearly 8 acres in No.254/2?
1360 1363 OF 2001 This appeal preferred by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.11.1999 passed by the High Court in Second Appeal Nos.
In the present case the High Court has framed the following alleged substantial questions of law Whether the lower appellate companyrt companypletely misconstrued Exs.
48, 49 and 61 of 1998.
Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed the aforesaid Second Appeal before the High Court under Section 100 C.P.C. The High Court reversed the companycurrent finding after re appreciating the finding of facts recorded by the two Courts below in the Second Appeal.
A13 are wholly inconsistent and companytradictory to the particulars in companyumn 26?
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
Exhibit A13 and A14 are the Survey and Settlement Registers in which list of properties taken over by Inam Abolition Act, 1948 has been listed.
Whether the lower appellate companyrt having held that the civil companyrt has jurisdiction to go into the question of title inspite of the issue of a patta, failed to ascertain the extent of Paimash Nos.
We have heard the parties.
Whether the companyrts below erred in their approach and appreciation by placing the burden of proof on the defendant?
