JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.3.1985 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. arising out of Original Suit No. 43 of 1978, Raja Ram and Ors. v. Mukhtiar and Ors.
3. The appellants are alleged to be owners and in possession of part of land of plot No. 821 measuring 7-1/2 Biswas through a sale deed executed by Harchand and Harpat In which the mud, Akhores, Neem trees, hand pump and Koori of the appellants are situated. It was alleged that the defendants have no concern of whatsoever with the disputed land and they wanted to take forcible possession of the said land. It was further case of the appellants that Likhi, father of the defendant No. 3 got executed a forged sale deed dated 15.12.1958 showing execution by Balloo son of Jahangir and in fact Balloo son of Jahangir had already disposed of his share in plot No. 837/2 of 13 biswansi vide sale deed dated 8.7.1958 to one Mavasi son of Ganga Sahai who is owner and in possession of the said land and as such there was no question of selling the said land by subsequent sale deed dated 15.12.1958.
4. The defendants-respondents contested the claim of the plaintiffs, inter alia, stating that the plaintiffs were not owners and in possession of the disputed land nor any such mud, Akhores etc. were situated in the land in dispute. Their case was that the land in fact belongs to defendant No. 3. The land in suit was a part of agricultural plot of Sudesh.
5. The lower court held that the plaintiffs-appellants failed to show that the disputed land forms part of plot No. 821 measuring 7-1/2 biswas and they have also failed to show their specific possessions over it. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants for permanent injunction was dismissed. Vide order dated 30.11.1984 the learned Munsif held that the sale deed dated 15.12.1958 in favour of defendants-respondents is a genuine document and earlier sale deed dated 8.7.1958 has not been proved rather, it seems to be fictitious. The court below has further held that there is no possession of the plaintiffs-appellants ; therefore, this finding also went against them. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned lower court, the present appeal was filed in the Court of Vth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad where it was registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 294 of 1979 Raja Ram and Ors. v. Mukhtiyar Singh and Ors.. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellants Raja Ram and others by holding that :
"From the entire evidence on record, the learned lower court has rightly held that the plaintiffs-appellants have failed to prove their title and ownership over the disputed land A.B.C.D. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs was rightly dismissed. I find no justification in Interfering the finding of the learned lower court, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. From the record, it is apparent that both the courts below have given findings of fact. No illegality in the judgments of both the courts below could be pointed out and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed.