CEEBROS Vs. G. RAJABAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appellant is the first defendant in the suit and the respondents Nos.1 to 3 are the plaintiffs. The second defendant in the suit has remained ex-parte both before the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court. He has also not been represented before this Court despite service of notice on him.

(2.) Notice has been duly served on the respondents Nos.1 to 3 and they are represented herein by a learned counsel, but there is no representation on their side, today

(3.) The Second Appeal is admitted on the following Substantial question of law Were the Courts below correct in granting a decree for permanent injunction merely because Plaintiffs proved their title but failed to establish their case of encroachment and trespass and also possession?