ORDER :

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21-08-1997 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jagdalpur, Kanker in Civil Suit No. 8-A/1992, by which, plaintiffs suit has been decreed and upon declaration of title of the plaintiff, the defendants have been directed to hand over possession of the property and decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, has also been passed.

2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction against the appellants-defendants on the pleadings inter alia, that the property in dispute belonged to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, property was purchased from one P.K. Rai and it was given to Late Deep Singh Chawda, who resided along with his family as Deep Singh Chawda was working as a Manager in the Factory owned by the plaintiff. In the pleadings, it was stated that the house, open land and cow shed was constructed by the plaintiff during the course of construction of his factory under the supervision of Deep Singh Chawda. It was pleaded that as long as Deep Singh Chawda was working as Manager in the employment of the plaintiff, he and his family were licensed to reside in the house in dispute. After death of Deep Singh Chawda, the plaintiff requested defendants to vacate the house, so that, it could be allotted to another Manager, but the defendant refused. When despite notice, possession was not handed over and title was disputed, the plaintiff filed suit.

3. The defendants took a stand that the house, adjoining land, cow shed did not belong to the plaintiff. Though, it was not disputed that Deep Singh Chawda was the Manager of the plaintiff, but the defendants came out with the case that the house was constructed by Deep Singh Chawda from his own funds under his ownership and title on a piece of land adjoining the factory, in which, he was working as Manager. The plaintiff had no title or ownership over the plot nor the plaintiff constructed the house. It was also pleaded that in settlement proceedings, land in dispute, on which, house was constructed and in which, defendants were living since 1978 has finally been settled in their favour by the order of the Revenue Authorities and they are enjoying the government lease over the land.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed following issues:--

^^1¼v½ D;k oknh oknxzLr@Hkwfe [kljk uacj 103@13&p ls fLFkr okn edku dk Lokeh gS\

2- D;k okn edku izfroknh Øekad 1 ds firk nhiflag pkoM+k us lu~ 1978 ds iwoZ Loa; ds ykxr ls fuekZ.k djk;k Fkk] bl dkj.k okn edku ds Lokeh izfroknhx.k gS\

3- D;k oknh izfroknhx.k ls oknxzLr edku dk fjDr vkf/kiR; izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

4- D;k oknh fnukad 25-05-92 ls okn izLrqr djus dh rkjh[k rd 20-00 : nSfud dh nj ls 1200-00 : varfje ykHk izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

5- D;k e-iz- 'kklu Hkh bl izdj.k esa vko';d i{kdkj gS\

6- Lkgk;rk ,oa O;;\^^

5. Learned trial Court relying upon the evidence of the parties, particularly relying upon a unregistered sale deed, Ex. P-9 for collateral purposes of proving possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute. It was also held that the house in dispute was constructed by the plaintiff, while he was constructing his factory under the supervision of Deep Singh Chawda. The learned trial Court also relied upon the letters Ex. P-136 to P-144 written by Deep Singh Chawda to hold that house in dispute was constructed under the supervision of Deep Singh Chawda, but it was constructed from the funds made available by the plaintiff. Learned trial Court held that from the evidence, it is borne out that Deep Singh Chawda had come to Charama in connection with his job in the factory, he was provided residential accommodation by the plaintiff. On these findings, it was held that the land in dispute, on which, house was constructed, belonged to the plaintiff and the plain