- (1.) The appellants-plaintiffs have filed the present appeal under Section 100 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.7.13 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Appeal No. 61/12, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.3.07 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Tonk in Civil Suit No. 60/2000.
(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking perpetual and mandatory injunction against the respondents-defendants, alleging interalia that the respondent No.1 was raising illegal "Chabutara" in front of the house of the plaintiffs, encroaching upon the land of public way. It was alleged by the appellants-plaintiffs that the plaintiffs had purchased two houses bearing No. 209 and 210 from the Rajasthan Housing Board and there was a public way situated on the western side of the said houses. According to the appellants, the defendant No.1 was putting up unauthorised construction by erecting 'Chabutara" making encroachment on the public way. The respondent No.1-defendant No.1 had resisted the suit by filing the written statement denying the allegations, and further contending that the appellants-plaintiffs themselves had raised "Chabutara" illegally in front of their houses, and thus the appellants had not come with clean hands before the court.
(3.) The trial court after appreciating the evidence on the record had dismissed the suit of the appellants vide the judgment and decree dated 12.3.07 against which the appeal was preferred by the appellants before the appellate court, which has also been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree. There being concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below to the effect that the appellants-plaintiffs had concealed the material fact by not disclosing that they themselves had raised the 'Chabutara" in front of their houses, this court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings. The learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any substantial question of law being involved in the appeal and hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed.;