Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the point of admission of second appeal and perused the records.
The plaintiffs/appellants had claimed ownership of disputed property detailed in the plaint on the basis of sale deed dated 09.5.1924 purchased by his father from one Shyama Devi. Defendants had purchased property of his ownership by auction of the evacuee property.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants submits that his property in question is not an evacuee property purchased by defendants through auction and they have no claim over the said property purchased by defendants. Trial court had found that disputed property is the same which is purchased by plaintiff's predecessor by sale deed dated 09.05.1924 but lower appellate court had held that plaintiff had failed to prove that disputed property was exactly the same. This contention of learned counsel for the appellants appears acceptable that by very minute appreciation of boundaries of the two properties, matter may be decided finally and those points may be clarified which had lost sight of the first appellate court. Although, this is a question of fact, but for determining the dispute finally, this point needs consideration so that possibility of any perversity in judgement of lower appellate court may be rectified. Therefore, appeal is admitted.
Following substantial question of law is framed:
"Whether the disputed property claimed by plaintiffs is the same which was purchased by his father through sale deed dated 09.05.1924 and has no connection with boundaries of evacuee property purchased through auction by defendants/respondents ? If so, its effect ?"
Summon the lower court records.
Issue notice to the respondents. Steps within 15 days by both ways.
List after service of notice.
Till further orders, appellants shall not disturb any portion of evacuee property purchased by defendant/respondent and shall maintain status quo on spot.
Order Date :- 26.5.2016 Sanjeev