SUHARA Vs. ROBERT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in O.S. No. 793 of 1997 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chavakkad are the appellants before me, requesting to decide the following substantial questions of law.

(2.) It is contended by Learned Counsel for appellants that there was no reason for the learned District Judge to interfere with the findings entered by the learned Munsiff. It is pointed out that in view of Exts.C1 to C4 there is no warrant for the conclusion that the way at the disputed portion has width of six feet as claimed by the original plaintiff. It is also argued that it is unlikely that beyond the level of coconut trees shown in Ext. C4 appellants constructed basement projecting into the way in question. Learned Counsel would contend that mandatory injunction granted by the appellate court cannot be sustained.

(3.) Learned Counsel for respondents supported the finding of learned District Judge. It is also contended that the said finding being one of fact based on evidence, no substantial question of law is involved and hence this Court is not required to interfere with the finding of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure.