- (1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in the suit. The suit was filed for permanent injunction, which has been dismissed by the Trial Court, against which the appeal has been filed, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 30.5.2011. Hence the present appeal has been filed. The contention of the appellant was that he was the member of society, namely, Govind Nagar Sahkari Grah Nirman Samiti and plot of 100 sq. metre was allotted to him. After the allotment, the possession has been given. The appellant had raised certain constructions over it. The suit for permanent injunction has been filed with the plea that he may not be evicted except in accordance to law. The Trial Court has refused to grant injunction on the ground that said plot has been sold to Smt. Saroj Balyan against the registered sale-deed and, therefore, the allotment in favour of Chunni Lal does not appear to be correct. The appellant failed to prove his legal allotment. The Trial Court has further recorded the finding that on the basis of identity card, ration card and telephone bill the possession of the plaintiff is not established. The finding recorded by the Trial Court has been approved by the appellate authority. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that after the allotment, the appellant has been put in possession of the suit property. Even if he may not have a title over the property but he cannot be evicted forcefully except in accordance to law. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chanda Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani, 2003 7 AllIndCas 625
(2.) I have considered the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order.
(3.) Admittedly, the appellant does not have a title over the suit property. The Court below has found that the allotment was not proper and plaintiff failed to prove the legal allotment. Further the finding has also been recorded that the plaintiff had also failed to prove the possession over the suit property. The findings of both the Courts below are finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises, which requires consideration.;