RAMDULARI Vs. PYARELAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-plaintiffs have filed the present appeal under Section 100 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.7.09 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Deeg, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Appeal No. 22/94, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.12.94 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Deeg, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 23/93 (11/85).

(2.) The original appellant Ramdulari had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants alleging interalia that the defendants were trying to put up wall and open a door towards Chabutra of Nohra situated on the southern side of the plaintiff's property as shown in the Map annexed to the plaint. The appellant-plaintiff had also sought injunction for restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff in using the Chabutra and from throwing any garbage on the said Chabutra. The said suit was resisted by the respondents-defendants by filing their written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that there was a common Chowk on the Government land and the appellant-plaintiff had put an illegal Chabutra on the said land. It was also contended that the defendants were putting construction on their own land and the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant against which the appeal was preferred before the appellate court, which has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

(3.) It has been submitted by the leaned counsel Mr. Rajesh Sharma for the appellants that both the courts below have misappreciated the evidence on record and have committed an error of law in passing the decree against the appellants. The submission made by the learned counsel cannot be accepted. Both the courts below have elaborately discussed the evidence and rightly held that appellants had no right to get the injunction as prayed for. As such, the suit of the plaintiff for injunction only without seeking any declaration was also not maintainable. In any case there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below, this court is not inclined to interfere with the same, more particularly when there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal.