- (1.) THE appellant, having been unsuccessful in all the three courts below, is before us in this appeal.
(2.) THE respondents filed a suit seeking grant of decree for permanent injunction against the appellant. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate court affirmed it. The second appeal filed by the appellant is also dismissed, finding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration between the parties, having regard to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court as well as the first appellate court misread the written statement in regard to the title and possession over the suit property. He also submitted that the suit itself was barred under S. 49 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; in the absence of any title over the suit property, the respondents were not at all entitled to decree.
(3.) IN opposition, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents made submissions in support of the impugned order. According to them, no fault could be found with the impugned order in the light of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court as well as by the first appellate court; more so, in the absence of any substantial question of law that arose for consideration between the parties in the second appeal.;