Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Mr. Sudhir Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs submits that finding of fact rendered by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless and until the appellants-defendants are able to point out any gross illegality and perversity. Sale deeds dated 10.06.1992 and 25.07.1990 have been proved on record as Ex.P1 and P2 2 of 5 and the sale deed dated 10.08.1990 has been proved on record as Ex.P3. Copy of the order dated 7.10.1992 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jhajjar has been produced as Ex.P4. Ex.P5 to P17 are jamabandies and the judgments showing title in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have already been held to be co-sharers vide judgment Ex.P6. The question of title has also been decided and therefore, the appellants- defendants cannot raise the issue of title in the present case. In Ex.P10, copy of the jamabandi, column No.9 shows "bila lagan" and therefore, the appellants-defendants had failed to prove tenancy. Once the plea of adverse possession has been taken, title of the respondents-plaintiffs is deemed to be admitted, thus, urges this Court to confirm the judgments and decrees passed by this Courts below by dismissing the second appeal.