The courts below have concurrently dismissed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against dispossession from the plaint schedule house. The plaintiff has admittedly no title over the house from which dispossession at the instance of the defendants is apprehended. The defendants are none other than the younger brother and his wife of the plaintiff.
2. The contention of the plaintiff is that he can cling on to the property till the sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- due under Ext. A1 agreement is paid by the defendants. The courts below have uniformly found that the plaintiff has not established his wherewithal to advance such a huge amount to the defendants. The fact that the plaintiff has not taken any steps hitherto to realise the amount allegedly due from the defendants also is bewildering.
3. The finding of the courts below that the plaintiff has failed to establish a case to cling on to possession is rested on R.S.A. No. 1088 of 2014 2 evidence. There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law in this regular second appeal.
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
DCS V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE