RAM RATI Vs. CHUNMANI AND 2 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal under Sec. 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preferred by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of her sehan. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and recorded a finding that the defendant has been using the land in question as a way for going to the well, which is a public way.

(2.) The plaintiff had preferred a regular first appeal which has also been dismissed by the appellate court affirming the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken the Court to various evidences and findings of the trial court and the appellate court but could not satisfy the Court that the findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any perversity.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of the judgments of the trial court and the appellant court, in my view, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Moreover, the findings recorded by the trial court and the appellate court are pure questions of fact and this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence under Sec. 100 C.P.C.