Possession–Decree of–Appreciation of–Defendant’s witnesses DW 1 & DW 2 were examined on the point of document Ex. 1 patta and they admitted the fact that the document was pertaining to the property in question–Pleadings of plaintiff that he is the owner of the property and defendant was appointed as the pujari, was found corroborated with the statements of his witnesses–Further, this fact was also admitted by the witnesses of defendant–Plaintiff also proved that the defendant was being given the salary–Ample evidence to prove that the defendant was appointed as a Pujari/Care-taker of the property and he did not have any rightful ownership over it–Even, the plaintiff should prove his own case, yet the specific admissions of the defendant’s witnesses also cannot be ignored–Defendant was to prove that the property was transferred to his ancestors but he failed to discharge this obligation–Held, suit was rightly decreed.
