SATPAL AND ORS. Vs. RESHAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-defendants are in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, whereby suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for permanent injunction has been decreed, in essence, judgment and decree of the trial Court, has been reversed.

(2.) Mr. S.K. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits, that the appellants-defendants acquired the ownership of the property vide sale deed dated 22.03.1979 and the suit for permanent injunction was filed in the year 2001, seeking restraint not to interfere and forcibly dispossessed on the premise that plaintiffs alongwith Chet Ram were co-sharers and the Chet Ram had erroneously sold more share than what he had. He further submits that once the plaintiff was aware of this fact, can only sought injunction. The respondents-plaintiffs able to seek a partition by challenging the sale deed and not simplicitor injunction and thus prays that following substantial question of law arises:-

(3.) Ms. Alka Sarin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5-plaintiffs submits that Lower Appellate Court being the last Court of fact and law, found that appellants-defendants were not in possession by virtue of the sale deed and further found that Chet Ram had 1/4th share in the property i.e. 139 square yards and out of which he has already raised a construction over a land measuring 124 square yard and the surplus area left with him was 15 square yards, whereas as per the sale deed, he had sold 323 square yards. The total holding of the co-sharers was 558 square yards and thus there is no illegality and perversity, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination. I have heard learned counsel for parties and appraised the paper book.