RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for appellants and perused the record.
(2.) The instant second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2006 (Smt. Madhu Sharma and others v. Fullu and others) as well as the judgment and decree dated 23.9.2006 passed in Original Suit No. 418 of 1992 (Smt. Madhu Sharma and others v. Fullu and others) whereby the suit for permanent injunction preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed and the first appeal preferred thereafter has also been dismissed.
(3.) As per given facts of the case, the plaintiffs had purchased the land in question from Dhiru son of Harbansh at a consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. The land in question was measuring 500 square yard situated at Khasra no. 168 measuring 1-0-7 village Sundra urf Putha, Pargana, Tehsil and District Meerut. The land in question was recorded in the revenue records in the name of Dhiru at the time of execution of the said sale-deed dated 12.8.1991. The plaintiffs had also purchased another plot measuring 874 square yard at a consideration of Rs. 1,04,880/- situated at the same plot number on 12.8.1991. As per the sale-deed the possession of the land in question was handed over to the plaintiffs. The respondents-defendants had started interfering in the possession of the appellants-plaintiffs, as such, the plaintiffs had preferred suit for permanent injunction along with application for temporary injunction. It is submitted that the Trial Court although has appreciated the right and title of the plaintiffs over the land in question but has dismissed the suit without properly considering the evidence on record. The first appeal preferred thereafter has also been dismissed, as such, the appellants-plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal.;