GIRIJA AND ORS. Vs. RAJAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial questions of law arising in this second appeal are thus:

(2.) Factual matrix, in the shortest form, is thus: Appellants were defendants in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the respondents alleging that they were trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property over which the respondents have exclusive title and possession. In the suit, the appellants filed a written statement raising a counter claim under Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, "CPC"). The appellants not only denied the allegations in the plaint that they attempted to trespass into the property, but also raised a contention that the respondents were trying to annihilate their right of way over the plaint schedule property. The trial court decreed the suit and dismissed the counter claim. The appellants took up the matter in first appeal to the lower appellate court. After re-appreciating the evidence, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the decree of the trial court. It is pertinent to note that only one appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the decree in the suit as well as that in the counter claim.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by dismissal of the appeal, the appellants have preferred this second appeal. At the time of hearing on admission, the above questions were raised.