JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the defendants' second appeal is as under:-

"Whether the finding relating to ownership of respondent No. 1 over the property is perverse?"

[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status and nomenclature shown in the suit before the trial Court].

2. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against defendants No. 1 to 3 stating inter-alia that he has purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 30.3.92 (Ex. P/1) from defendant No. 3 and obtained peaceful possession of the suit land and his name was got mutated by order of the Tahsildar dated 14.8.1982 and challenge made to that mutation order by defendant No. 1 in appeal before the Settlement Officer, Surguja was allowed by order dated 2.4.93 vide Ex. P/8 leading to filing of the suit for aforesaid relief. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff claimed that he has been dispossessed by the defendants, after rejecting his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, plaint was allowed to be amended by order dated 9.