Honble YADAV, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length.

(2). Perused the judgments given by both the Courts below.

(3). The instant Second Appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of fact and no substantial question of law is involved, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed summarily.

(4). At the first instance it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that as there is no pleading about the oral gift in the plaint therefore both the Courts below were not entitled to travel beyond the pleadings of the plaintiff-landlord respondents.

(5). A close scrutiny of Paragraph 2 of the plaint leads towards an irresistible conclusion that the factum of gift by Gafoor in favour of plaintiff respondents Rabiya and Yakoob was pleaded. It is true that in the plaint it was not made specific as to whether the gift by Gafoor in favour of Rabiya and Yakoob was oral or written. Suffice it to say in this regard that if the defendant feels any ambiguity in the pleadings it ought to have been clarified as envisaged u/O. 10 r. 1 CPC. Be that as it may, both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding to the effect that Gafoor who purchased the disputed premises through reg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document