RAM SARAN Vs. RAM KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the property in dispute and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court below dated 19-8-2000, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 11-8- 2000.

(2.) IT appears that the plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the property in dispute. IT was pleaded that the defendants who had no concern with the said property were interfering in their possession. The suit was contested by the defendants who pleaded that the plaintiffs were neither the owners nor in possession of the property in dispute, the suit was therefore, liable to be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed several issues. Issue No. 1 was to the effect as to whether the appellants were the owners in possession of the property in dispute. The trial Court after hearing the parties and perusing the material on the record recorded clear and categorical findings on the relevant issues against the appellants. IT was held that the appellants were neither owners nor in possession of the property in dispute. On other issues also, findings were recorded against the appellants. Challenging the validity of judgment and decree passed by the court below dated 11-12-1998, the appellants filed the civil appeal before the court below. The court below has also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court on all issues and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and decree dated 19-8-2000. Hence, the present second appeal.

(3.) THE Courts below have taken into consideration the entire evidence on the record and thereafter recorded findings on various issues involved in the case. THE findings recorded by the Courts below are based on oral and documentary evidence, they cannot therefore, said to be perverse. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings on the questions of ownership and possession, which are based on relevant evidence on the record. THE findings recorded by the Courts below are all findings of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power under Section 100, CPC.