RUSTOM Vs. RAMZAN ALIAS RAMZANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT/plaintiff by claiming himself as owner of the property in dispute, filed a suit with the prayer that the respondents be restrained from interfering in the property, the description of which was given in his plaint. In the alternative, it was also pleaded that the respondentdefendant Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 be directed to remove the encroachment from Regular Second Appeal No. 3115 of 2004. -2- the property, which in fact was his ownership. The suit was dismissed and also the appeal. Both the Courts below having taken note of the sale deed executed by one Shakuntala in favour of the appellant and another sale deed, which was executed by Ramzan in favour of Shakuntla, came to the conclusion that the property, which was subject matter of sale in both the sale deeds do not tally with each other. It was also found as a matter of fact that the appellant has failed to prove that he was in possession of the disputed portion of the property,as alleged by him. By taking note of the contents of the sale deed. Ex.P-1, it has further been held that the property was not joint, as stated by the appellant.

(2.) NO case is made out for interference, as no substantial question of law, has been raised by the counsel at the time of arguments. Dismissed. However, if so advised, the appellant may settle his dispute regarding payment of consideration money with Shakuntla from whom he is alleged to have purchased the property in dispute.