- (1.) Respondent No. 1 plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer that the appellant and respondent No. 2 be restrained from interfering in her possession of the property, description of which was given by her in the plaint. Suit was decreed. Appellant failed in appeal . It is apparent from the records that when despite affording several opportunities, appellant failed to file his writtenstatement and also to make payment of costs imposed upon him, his defence was struck off. Suit was contested by respondent No. 2. The Courts below have found it, as a matter of fact, that some part of the property was purchased by respondent No. 1 from the appellant and this fact has not been controverted even before this Court. Regarding rest of the portion, a finding has come that respondent No. 1 was a lessee. Her possession over the property in dispute was also proved on record.
(2.) To arrive at the finding given above, reliance has been placed upon the revenue record in the shape of Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari receipts, Ex.P7 to P12, site plans Ex. P1 and P2 and oral evidence led by the parties.
(3.) This Court is of the view that the findings given are perfectly justified and based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. No case is made out for interference in pure findings of fact, as no substantial question of law has been raised during arguments. Dismissed.;