Mahesh Grover, J.@mdashThis Regular Second Appeal has been directed against judgment and decree dated 30.11.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul (hereinafter described as ''the first appellate Court'') vide which judgment and decree dated 12.5.1980 of the Sub Judge IInd Class, Rewari (referred to hereinafter as ''the trial Court'') were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for permanent and mandatory injunction was decreed against the defendants-appellants.
2. The plaintiff, in her suit, had prayed as under:
(1) that the defendants be restrained from interfering in her possession over the gali in dispute as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint;
(2) that they be further restrained from obstructing the construction of a wall being raised by her on points ''LO'';
(3) that they be also restraining from installing a gate at points ''LM'' in the gali in dispute and thereby making a passage to their houses;
(4) that they be directed to remove the khurli made by them at point ''Z'' and restore the gali in dispute in its original position; and
(5) that they be further directed to restore the Janglas (windows) and ventilator at points W1, W2 and V1, respectively, belonging to her, in their original position as the same were broken by them.
3. It was pleaded that the property bearing municipal No. 3029-V1 along with the gali in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 5.1.1970 and the defendants had no concern with the same.
4. The defendants resisted the suit and pleaded that the plaintiff was not owner of the gali in dispute and that they were owners of the place depicted in red colour in the site plan produced by her. It was further pleaded that they were entitled to use the disputed land in the manner they liked.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the gali shown in the site plan?OPP
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD
3. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his (sic. her) own act and conduct?OPD
5. Relief.
6. After appraisal of the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not owner of the gali in dispute and, consequently, dismissed the suit.
7. In appeal, the first appellate Court reversed the aforesaid finding and decreed the suit of the plaintiff giving rise to the instant appeal by the defendants.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned judgment is based on misreading of evidence and hence, is liable to be set aside, whereas learned Counsel for the respondent urged that the findings recorded by the first appellate Court are pure findings of fact and do not call for any interference.
9. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the impugned judgment, as also the record.
10. The plaintiff-respondent, to establish her ownership over the gali in dispute, had proved on record the sale deed in which there was a categoric inclusion of gali and the rights pertaining to it were transferred to her. Even though, the appellants had denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the gali in dispute and questioned such an interpretation of the sale deed, yet, it is to be seen that the first appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that she was owner of the said gali. Moreover, the appellants have not denied the existence thereof, but only pleaded that it is for public use. Even if such a plea is to be accepted, then also, the appellants cannot be permitted to block the same and on the other hand, if the claim of the respondent is to be accepted, then also, they cannot claim any right over it. Thus, there is no material on record to show any perversity in the findings contained in the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel for the appellants has also failed to point out any infirmity or illegality that has been shown to have been committed by the first appellate Court.
11. In my opinion, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court.
12. Therefore, the instant appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.
