thus the first appellate court without application of mind and without considering the provisions of Act came to conclusion that without public auction such property cannot be sold. The appellate court has failed to consider the permission Ex.6, which we have referred to hereinavove and also accepted by PW-1 Ramavtar in his evidence. The findings recorded by the appellate court on issues No.8 (A) and 8 (C) are contrary to the material on record. 33. Learned Appellate court insisted that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title. A perusal of the plaint indicated that the suit was filed for eviction, arrear of rent and perpetual injunction by original plaintiffs (A public trust and trustees). A perusal of record and evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 clearly suggested that a public trust was registered with the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan and document of registration Ex.1/1 was filed by the plaintiff, moreover, certain more documents were filed by the plaintiff to establish that the property belongs to them. The appellate court was of the view that the plaintiff was required to file Patta, JDA record or land revenue record. The demand of title documents in such case is contrary to law and settled position. As regard to suit for eviction is concerned, it is an established proposition of law that in a suit for eviction the plaintiff has not required to prove the title of the suit property, to claim possession.
