RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records.
(2.) The instant second appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 5.7.2017, passed by Additional District Judge (F.T.C.-I), Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2008, as well as the judgment and decree dated 25.3.2008, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur in Suit No. 156 of 2003, whereby the suit for permanent injunction preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed and the appeal filed thereafter before the lower appellate court has also been dismissed.
(3.) As per the given facts of the case, the land in dispute situated at Gata No. 263 measuring 2.247 hectare, Village Patkhuri, Pargana Rath, Tehsil Sarila, District Hamirpur was the agricultural land. As per the appellants-plaintiffs they were the bhumidhars over the said land. They had acquired the title over the land in question on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 11.8.1997 at a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. The said sale deed was executed by one Uday Bhan in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs. On the basis of said sale deed the land in question was recorded in the name of appellants in the revenue records and they were in possession over the land in question, however, the respondents-defendants had started interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellants/plaintiff and, as such, the suit for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs. The learned trial court has dismissed the suit without properly considering the evidence on record. The appellants-plaintiffs thereafter filed the first appeal before appellate court, which too, has been dismissed without properly appreciating the contention raised in the appeal. As such, the instant second appeal was filed.;