GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MAHBOOB ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for permanent injunction and recovery of Rs. 23,928. 20 and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court below dated 4-4- 1998/18-4-1998. 3. It appears that plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering in the right of plaintiffs to construct their house and for a direction to refund the amount of Rs. 23,928. 20 deposited by the respondents as levy money. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs- respondents purchased the land in dispute from Balbir Singh Tyagi for constructing a house. The land in question was actually allotted by the appellant to Balbir Singh Tyagi who sold the same in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents with the permission of the appellant. The appellant thereafter submitted construction plan/map to the appellant for approval; but within the prescribed time the map was neither approved nor disapproved. Thereafter they started construction of the house in dispute. On a direction issued by the appellant the amount of levy, i. e. Rs. 23,928. 20 was deposited by the respondents. Since the appellant was interfering with the construction of the house, the respondents had to file the above noted suit. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant who has filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs- respondents. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed necessary issues. Parties produced the evidence in support of their cases. Trial Court after going through the evidence on record decreed the suit for injunction as well as for recovery of Rs. 23,928. 20 by its judgment and decree dated 20-4-1995. Challenging the validity of the said decree, appellant filed an appeal before the Court below. The Court below also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and decree dated 4-4- 1998/18-4-1998. Hence, the present second appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the courts below have acted illegally in misreading the evidence on the record and decreeing the suit and in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below according to him, were therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. I have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and also perused the record. 7. The two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact on the question involved in the case. It has been held that the sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents were valid and they had right to raise construction over the land in dispute. It has also been held that it was on account of fault committed by the appellant that there was delay in construction of the house. The plaintiffs- respondents were, therefore, not liable to pay any amount of levy. The amount deposited by them was liable to be returned. The findings recorded by the Courts below are all concurrent findings of fact which are based on the relevant evidence on record. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, therefore, the same fails and is dismissed under Order. The appeal is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11, CPC, Rule 1 CPC. Appeal dismissed. .