Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1977 passed by III Addl. District Judge, Gonda.
(2.) A suit for permanent injunction and possession was filed by the plaintiffs -respondents, which was dismissed by the Addl. Munsif IV, Gonda vide judgment and decree dated 3.5.1976 holding that the plaintiffs -respondents have no direct connection with the land in dispute and they are not using the same as 'Kolhar' whereas the land in dispute is 'Sahan Darwaza' of defendant no.2 -appellant and he is the owner of the same on the basis of sale deed dated 16.6.1973. The trial court also held that the plaintiffs -respondents have neither established the title nor possession. Against the aforesaid order, plaintiffs -respondents preferred an appeal before the III Addl. District Judge, Gonda, who allowed the appeal vide judgement and decree dated 15.12.1977 holding that the plaintiffs -respondents is entitled to the relief of injunction and possession and the deed got executed by defendant no.2 -appellant is only to grab the property in dispute. While allowing the appeal of the plaintiffs -respondents, the lower appellate court has observed as under: - The measurement of the land is also noted in the above said boundary details in the sale deed dated 16.6.1973 but in the clarification deed it is alleged that the measurement and boundary details have not been noted, therefore, this clarification deed (Titimma Nama) is being executed. This fact clearly shows that these documents have been got prepared for the purposes of making claim over the property in dispute. Besides this, the boundary details given in the clarification deed (Titimma Nama) of the property -in -dispute are different from the boundary details given in the sale deed. The clarification deed is not a supplementary document but is inconsistent with the original sale deed in respect of the boundary details of the property in dispute. As mentioned above, in the boundary details given in the sale deed, the Ghari of Manorath has been shown just adjoining towards east of the property in dispute. Towards north, the neem tree belonging to Manorath, is shown in the aforesaid boundary details in the sale deed. This sale -deed supports the version of the plaintiffs that the land in dispute was just adjoining to the other property of the plaintiffs. But by the help of clarification deed (Titimma Nama) the defendants have tried to show that there was no premises of any of the plaintiffs adjoining to the property in dispute. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the lower appellate court, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal nor learned counsel for the appellant has been able to make out any substantial question of law, which may render the judgment rendered by the lower appellate court illegal. I do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.;