Babu Ram Vs. Gigu and ors. - Court Judgment
|Court||Himachal Pradesh High Court|
|Case Number||Second Appeal No. 2 of 1954|
|Judge|| Ramabhadran, J.C.|
|Acts||Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 41, Rule 22; ;Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114|
|Respondent||Gigu and ors.|
|Appellant Advocate|| H.C. Anand, Adv.|
|Respondent Advocate|| Dina Nath, Adv.|
.....learned judge further held that the defendants 1 to 8 had no mortgagee rights. he, however, non-suited the plaintiffs, in view of his finding that johri had not been in possession of the suit lands.
4. the plaintiffs went, up in appeal to the learned district judge of bilaspur. that learned judge granted the plaintiffs a decree for possession holding, firstly, that johri had been in possession of the suit lands and, secondly, that the defendants 1 to 8 had no mortgagee rights. in disposing of that appeal, the learned district judge also made an order partly allowing certain cross-objections filed by the defendants-respondents. babu ram, defendant, has now come up in second appeal.
5. arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on the 11th and 13th instant. the.....order13. i allow the second appeal, set aside the decision of the district judge dated 16-1-1954 in appeal no. 50/13 of 1953 and restore that of the subordinate judge, bilaspur, d/-8-8-1953 in suit no. 150 of 1952. in other words, the suit will stand dismissed. the appellant will get his costs here and in the courts below, from the plaintiffs-respondents,
13. I allow the second appeal, set aside the decision of the District Judge dated 16-1-1954 in Appeal No. 50/13 of 1953 and restore that of the Subordinate Judge, Bilaspur, D/-8-8-1953 in suit No. 150 of 1952. In other words, the suit will stand dismissed. The appellant will get his costs here and in the Courts below, from the plaintiffs-respondents,