JUDGMENT :- This is a defendants appeal against the judgment and decree declaring Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the owners and No. 3 their lessee in respect of the suit property and restraining the appellants from interfering with their possession. The judgment is so brief and laconic that it is difficult to make out the respective pleadings of the parties. As I am remanding the case to the learned lower Court, it is not necessary to set out the pleadings in detail.

2. The dispute relates to a property called Rumod situate at Surla. The registration number of the property is said to be 12.104. Respondents did not raise specific pleadings about their title though in evidence attempt was made to induct material facts about title which were not at all pleaded. Respondents 1 and 2 started with a bland plea that they were the owners and they had leased out the property to Respondent No. 3. 3. Appellants/defendants denied Respondents title and pleaded ownership and possession with them. The main point raised by the appellants was that actually the registration number of the property Rumod was 8523 and not 12104 as pleaded in the plaint. This property was registered in appellants names and Resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document