The courts below have concurrently dismissed the suit for mandatory injunction and also for a permanent prohibitory injunction. The courts below have noticed that the defendants had obtained certificates of purchase in O.A. Nos. 146/1974, 147/1974 and 148/1974. The certificate of purchase of the plaintiff in relation to the same property is subsequent in O.A. No. 149/1974. The Supreme Court in Nabeesumma Vs. Miniyatan Zacharias [(2008) 5 SCC 25] has held that the land tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue a second certificate for the property.
2. The evidence on record also does not inspire confidence in the case of the plaintiff. The fact that the plaintiff and the defendants are closely related has been taken note of. Ext.P1 irrigation permit issued to the defendants take in the plaint schedule property as well. The finding of the courts below 2 RSA No. 1030/2014 that the plaintiff is disentitled to a decree for injunction is rested on evidence.
There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed.
ncd V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE