GANPAT Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT, by claiming himself as owner of the property in dispute, filed a suit for possession, which was dismissed. He also lost in appeal. Similarly, respondent No. 1 filed a suit for injunction against the appellant, which was decreed and appeal filed by the appellant against that judgment and decree was dismissed. Hence this appeal. It is apparent from the records that both the Courts below, by taking note of evidence on record, have found it as a matter of fact that regarding the property in dispute, the appellant has failed to prove that he was owner of the same, whereas it has successfully been proved by respondent No. 1 that he was in possession of the property in dispute as owner. It has also come on record that the property in dispute was purchased by respondent No. 1 with consent of the appellant. Earlier demarcation was made in the year 1990 in presence of the appellant and thereafter boundary wall was also raised by respondent No. 1 in the presence of the appellant and other respectables of the village. In view of findings given by the appellate Court below in paras No. 14 to 20 of the judgment, no case is made out for interference, as no substantial question of law has been raised. Dismissed.