Honble JAIN, J.–The defendant appellant has filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, `the C.P.C.) against the judgment and decree dated 18.4.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1 Bharatpur, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the defendant- appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 11.1.1983 passed by the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Weir, District Bharatpur, in Civil Suit No. 56/1976, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed.

(2). This Court, while admitting the second appeal on 7th of August, 1984, formulated the following questions of law:-

``1. Because the learned Court below made a mistake of law and gave perverse finding that since defendant could not prove that Bhoti had any other house in Helna, except the house in question, therefore, it is fully proved that the Gharghuda in the alleged will was in respect of the house in question.

2. Whether in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction relief of the possession could be given without averment in the plaint?

(3). Brief facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent Raghu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document