- (1.) Heard submissions of learned counsel for the appellants on the point of admission of second appeal and perused the records.
(2.) Original suit no. 361 of 1997 was filed for the relief of permanent injunction. In this case, plaint averment in brief was that Amman Khan, father of the plaintiffs, was owner in possession of disputed plot no. 386/2 and 227/2 which was being used by him as pond. After death of Amman Khan, the plaintiffs came in occupation of said property and doing pisciculture and using its water for drinking of cattle. Since defendant had no right or possession over this property but are trying to interfere in occupation of plaintiffs, therefore, plaintiffs had filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants to interfere in their possession in illegal manner.
(3.) The defendant Nagar Palika had filed written statement in original suit by which plaint averments were denied and it was pleaded that disputed plots no. 386/2 and 227/2 belongs to defendants, and the plaintiffs have no right or possession over it. These disputed plots are trenching grounds and are being used for drinking of cattle. No line of demarcation is present on spot and disputed property is not identifiable. This disputed property is in possession of defendant and is a land of public utility, therefore the plaintiffs' suit should be dismissed.;