Heard Sri A.K. Trivedi, holding brief of Sri V.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the defendants/appellants and Sri R.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent.
The suit of the plaintiff/respondent for permanent injunction in respect of the suit land was decreed by the court of first instance and the same has also been affirmed by the lower appellate court.
The submission of learned counsel for the defendants/appellants is that the plaintiff/respondent is not the owner in possession of the land in dispute and as such he is not entitled for any decree as prayed for. It has further been submitted that the on land in dispute exist an ancestral house of the defendants/appellants and they are the owners of it.
The courts below have concurrently recorded that the plaintiff/respondent had purchased the aforesaid property by two sale deeds dated 20.1.07 and 22.1.07 from one Smt. Paragiya, who had purchased the same from the previous owner Mumtaz Ali vide sale deed dated 1.9.76. Both the above sale deeds were on record and proved.
On the other hand, no documentary evidence was adduced by the defendants/appellants to prove that the property was their ancestral property. The oral evidence adduced on their behalf also is only to the effect that the father and grand-father of the defendants/appellants were in occupation the said property but there is no evidence that they were the owners.
In view of the aforesaid, the court below have not committed any error in holding that the plaintiff/respondent has established his right, title and interest over the property in dispute and as such is entitle for a decree of injunction. The case of the defendants/appellants was disbelieved. The aforesaid finding is finding of fact which involves no question of law. It does not even appear to be perverse in nature.
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that this appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 9.9.2010 piyush