the plaintiff had not shown that Partap Raj was entitled to property to constitute a valid sale in his favour. The Court also examined defendant's document and found that it referred to some other khasra number which had no bearing to the khasra No.144/16 and held that defendant's purchase also was not valid. Appraising the oral evidence of witnesses, the Court found that it was not merely a vacant land but a residential kotha and even a person, who claimed to be actually in possession of property was examined by the defendant to support his plea that the plaintiff was not in possession. The Court found also that in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C, the property had been attached and the property was found to be in possession of property for its being protected till displaced in accordance with law. The suit was, therefore, dismissed on a finding that the plaintiff had not established his possession but the defendant's possession had been so established. 4. In appeal by the plaintiff, the Appellate Court found the reliance on Ex.P7 namely the judgment in Civil Suit No.288 was wholly irrelevant, for there was no decree against the present plaintiff and in fact the restraint by a decree of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff in that suit was only against Kishan Lal and Girraj and not against the plaintiff's vendor. Referring to the plaintiff's claim to title, the Court found that jamabandi entry in the year 1976-77 showed that Partap Raj, the plaintiff's vendor's name had been entered and there must be a presumption relating to the correctness of the entry and that property must be taken as continued in the hands of the plaintiff in the year 1982. While examining the issue of possession which became very relevant since the suit was for bare relief of injunction, the Appellate Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.10.29 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
