right to possess the property on the basis of a purported agreement / deed of partition executed on 3/1/1981. It is not disputed by the Plaintiff, and it is in fact acknowledged by the purported agreement / deed of partition relied on by him that the entire larger plot of CS No.1277 was purchased by the Defendant. It is, however, the Plaintiff's case that the Plaintiff had contributed 50% of the purchase price when this land was purchased by the Defendant. On the basis of this contribution, it is the Plaintiff's case that the suit agreement / deed of partition was executed between the parties on 3/1/1981, dividing the property between the parties as mentioned in the document. The agreement recorded that the respective parties have taken possession of their respective portions and that a proper sale deed was to be executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff within fifteen days. Admittedly, no such sale deed was executed in favour of the Plaintiff. In the premises, the conclusion of the trial court as well as the appeal court that the Plaintiff has not proved his title in the suit property is unexceptionable. The document of 3/1/1981 by itself cannot be said to have created any title in favour of the Plaintiff. It, in fact, provides for a sale deed to be executed in favour of the Plaintiff. Question No.2 is required to be decided accordingly. In view of this, the first question need not really be decided. The other claim of the Plaintiff, namely, the claim for perpetual injunction which is inter alia based on his permissive possession in pursuance of the purported agreement / deed of partition, was accepted by the trial court. Based on such acceptance, the Defendant is restrained from disturbing the Plaintiff's possession of the western half of City Survey No.1277 till his lawful dispossession by the Defendant. This part of the order passed by the trial court was not the subject matter of the appeal filed by the Plaintiff. What the Plaintiff had contested in the appeal was the refusal of the trial court to grant him declaration of ownership. As I have noted above, there is
