Specific Relief Act, 1963–Sec. 34–Suit for declaration and possession–Dismissed–Findings set aside by High Court–High Court erroneously placed the burden of proof of title and possession of the plaintiffs on defendants–High Court also ignored the fact that after losing the case in the first round, plaintiff got amended the plaint and took the plea of adverse possession–Suit was again dismissed by trial Court–Plaintiff also failed to produce the evidence in regard to having the oral patta of land–He also failed to prove his adverse possession–Held, findings of High Court are erroneous and deserve to be set aside.
