JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff (now his Lrs.) was admitted for hearing on 26/08/2020 on the following two substantial questions of law :-

“1. Whether both the Courts below are justified in denying the relief of restoration of possession in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of Ex-D/1 allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants, by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record ?

2. Whether both the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit for want of Court fee ?”

[Parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status given and ranking shown before the trial Court.]

2. The sole plaintiff – Murlidhar initially filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining defendants from interfering with his possession in the suit property shown in Schedule 'A' appended with the plaint. Thereafter, during the pendency of the suit, by way of amendment in the plaint, he also inserted the relief of restoration of possession with respect to the suit property shown in Schedule 'B' appended with the plaint.

3. It is admitted position on record that plaintiff as well as defendants No. 1 to 3, all are descendants