DURGA DASS Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was admitted on 28/10/2010 on following substantial question of law:-

(2.) The case:

(3.) Heard both sides. The sole substantial question of law on which this appeal was admitted and around which the learned counsel for the parties hav2009e advanced their submissions is whether the permanent injunction could have been granted against the true owner of the suit land more so when the decree sought by the plaintiff was concurrently declined to him for being declared as owner of the suit land by both the learned Courts below. My observations are as under:- 3(i) Admittedly both the learned Courts below have not granted the decree of declaration prayed for by the plaintiff that he had become owner of the suit land. Indisputably plaintiff has not assailed this part of the judgment and decree of both the learned Courts below whereby the relief of declaration was declined to him. The question to be considered is after declining the relief of declaration of being owner of the suit land, can the plaintiff be still granted the relief of injunction against the true owner. Learned Trial Court has returned the findings that the owner of the suit land was Dandu, who had sold the suit land in favour of defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.25000.00 on 23/5/1997. This finding has not been interfered by the learned First Appellate Court. The plaintiff has not assailed the judgments and decrees to this effect. Plaintiff has neither taken recourse to cross appeal or cross objections nor has he challenged the findings against him, in any form.