Ex.B1 sale deed is not sustainable in law, that by itself, would not entitle the plaintiff to seek any declaration with reference to the same as the plaintiff does not have any claim of title to the suit property as such and in such view of the matter, as rightly argued by the second defendant's counsel, the judgment and decree of the first appellate court is found to be a bundle of inconsistencies and contradictions and having declined the relief of declaration of title to the suit property prayed for by the plaintiff, the first appellate court, by erroneously granting the other relief sought for by the plaintiff qua the sale deed dated 12.09.2000, resultantly had also granted the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property as prayed for. When the plaintiff has failed to establish his valid claim of title to the suit property and accordingly his claim of declaration of title to the suit property having been negatived by the courts below, to hold, even thereafter, that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, cannot, at all, be countenanced in any manner, particularly, as against the true owner, namely, the first defendant as well as the second defendant, who is found to have acquired the portion of the suit property from the first defendant by virtue of Ex.B1 sale transaction, all the more, when the plaintiff has placed no acceptable and reliable material for evidencing his claim of possession and enjoyment of the suit property as put forth by him based on the alleged hand letter, despite the above position, the first appellate court had totally committed a miscarriage of justice in granting the other reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff and as rightly pointed out by the second defendant's counsel, when no credence, at all, could be made on the hand letter projected by the plaintiff for claiming any reliefs with reference to the suit property, particularly, when the genuineness and validity of the said hand letter has not been established and also furthermore, when the plaintiff has failed to establish his claim of possession and enjoyment of the suit property, quite inconsistent to its refusal to the grant the relief of declaration of title to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, the first appellate court has committed a total error in granting the other reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff without appreciating the issues involved in the matter in the right perspective and also by giving perverse reasons and conclusions pertaining to the same.
