ownership and their possession. The trial court has also recorded a categorical finding that the defendant-respondents no.1 to 4 have made possession on the land in dispute and kept two thatches on the same during pendency of the suit. Thus the thatches, put by them during pendency of the suit after making possession, are liable to be demolished. The appellate court without recording the reasons for disagreement with the factual findings recorded by the trial court on the basis of pleadings,evidence and material on record and setting aside the same, allowed the appeal, which could not have been done. The appellate court has not considered and dealt with the evidence of all witnesses and the commission report. In fact, the appeal has been decided on the new plea which was not in dispute. Thus, the appellate court has travelled beyond its power under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. The appellate court has also failed to consider the evidence of D.W.4, who has admitted the ownership and possession of predecessor-ininterest of Bacha Ram and Kripa Ram i.e. their father.
