NAGINA SINGH AND ORS. Vs. SURJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and with his assistance, have gone through the record of the case.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has referred a judgment dated 22.5.1979 passed by the Court of Sub Judge IInd Class, Ambala City and submitted that his judgment does not indicate the boundary of the area which was pre -empted. In the absence of any boundary of the Bara, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have purchased the Bara in dispute. He further submitted that the decree was passed on compromise without specifying the boundary in a clandestine manner so as to give title to Sh. Surjan Singh plaintiff -respondent. I am not in a position to subscribe to the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The decree would show that Sh. Surjan Singh and others filed a suit for possession by way of pre -emption of the Bara in question in the abadi deh of village Dhurla Tehsil and Distt. Ambala against the vendee. The parties compromised. Their statements were recorded and in that compromise the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed for possession as owners by way of pre -emption of the Bara in dispute. The present is a suit for injunction. Both the courts have rightly concluded that the plaintiffs are in possession of the Bara. The moment the established possession is proved, they have right to protect their possession. A concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed in the regular second appeal as no legal question has arisen in the present appeal. No merit. Dismissed.