RADEY SHYAM Vs. HARI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant -plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.12.13 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Appeal No. 27/13, whereby the appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.8.12 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (SD) Lalsot (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 109/12.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the appellant -plaintiff has filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent -defendant, who is his brother, in respect of the plot of land shown as 'abcd' in the map annexed to the plaint. It was alleged in the plaint inter alia that the appellant -plaintiff had put up the construction on the suit land after obtaining permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat, however the respondent -defendant was causing obstruction and had taken forcible possession of the suit land. The said suit was resisted by the respondent -defendant by contending inter alia that the suit plot known as 'Bada' was owned and possessed by the respondent -defendant and the plaintiff did not have any right to use or put up construction on the said 'Bada'. The trial court at the outset after framing the issues and appreciating the evidence on the record dismissed the suit against which the appellant -plaintiff had filed the appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court also dismissed the said appeal and, therefore, the present second appeal has been filed.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and to the judgments of both the courts below it appears that the appellant had filed the suit in respect of the 'Bada' seeking injunction only. The appellant had failed to produce any documentary or oral evidence with regard to the ownership of the said 'Bada' nor had produced any evidence to show that the said 'Bada' was being used by him and the respondent jointly. Both the courts below having concurrently recorded the findings against the appellant -plaintiff, this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Even otherwise, there being no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.