The courts below have concurrently decreed the suit for a mandatory injunction to demolish the construction and for a prohibitory injunction against trespass. The predecessor in interest of the defendant had succeeded in obtaining a certicate of purchase only in regard one cent of land as a holder of karaima. The attempt to obtain assignment of a larger extent allegedly for beneficial enjoyment was nipped in the bud in O.P. No. 617/2000. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant is in possession in any extent in excess of the said extent of one cent. The courts below have concurrently found that the latrine constructed by the defendant is outside the extent of land purchased as a holder of karaima.
2. There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law in this Regular Second Appeal. The execution court will see to it that no structure in the one cent of land covered by Ext.A3 order and Ext.A4 certificate of purchase is 2 RSA No. 929/2011 demolished. Any further grievance of the defendant can be gone into by the execution court in terms of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
ncd V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE