- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff.
(2.) BY the concurrent judgments and decree/s both the courts below have refused to grant injunction to the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that he has failed to establish the exclusive title and ownership over the suit property and, therefore, injunction against co-sharer, who also claimed share in the same property, could not be granted. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. V.K. Aggarwal, informed the Court that after the decision by the courts below and during the pendency of the present second appeal, the appellant had also filed another suit for declaration, title and right in the suit property. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and upon perusal of reasons given in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below, this Court finds that no substantial questions of law arise in the present second appeal. The findings and observations made in the present suit should not affect the pending civil suit, which has been filed during the pendency of the present second appeal claiming declaration and title over the suit property. With these observations, the present second appeal of the plaintiff-appellant is disposed of as indicated herein above.;