The third point on which the impugned judgment was assailed was that the contesting respondents (original plaintiffs) did not succeed in proving their title in respect of Survey No. 1 to 3 (contesting respondents) who are the legal representatives of the Original Plaintiffs, 10 did not prove that the disputed land falls within Survey No. The second point urged was that the respondent Nos. It was, therefore urged that in the absence of any pleading and prayer for relief against the Defendant No.2 (Predecessor-in-title of the Appellants), the suit is liable to be dismissed as against Defendant No.2 in view of the provisions of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure. Attention of this Court was drawn to the original prayer in the plaint and also the prayer in the amended plaint. The first issue which was raised was that no pleading and no prayer for a decree of possession was made against Lateef Hassan Burney, Original Defendant No.2 (the Predecessor in title of the Appellants).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |