Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The said Regular Civil Appeal was allowed by the First Appellate Court by placing reliance on the document Exh.76 which was in Modi script. The First Appellate Court observed that after going through the translation of the said document, which is at Exh.84, though a doubt can be raised about the existence of gadhi itself at the time of partition, the First Appellate Court was of the view that the recitals in the document positively go to show that the gadhi was very much in existence. The said conclusion was arrived at by the Appellate Court on the basis that there were two Wells in the property and it was stated that one Well was inside the gadhi and the other was outside.

The trial Court also took into consideration the fact that in some other proceeding, plaintiff''s right over the Well which is outside the gadhi, has been endorsed by a Court. This fact according to the First Appellate Court also fortified the case of the plaintiff that the gadhi was in existence and that even some portion outside the said gadhi was owned by him. The First Appellate Court considering the existence of other structures like buruj or bastion which was described in the translation Exh.84 of the document in Modi script, reached to a conclusion that the gadhi was in existence at the time of so called partition. The First Appellate Court therefore, on the basis of the said document decreed the suit and resultantly the plaintiff Pralhad was declared owner of the suit property and the defendant Madanlal was directed to deliver the vacant possession of the encroached portion as per the Commissioner's map to the plaintiff.