Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs -appellants assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur(for short 'the appellate court') whereby appeal filed by the plaintiffs -appellants has been dismissed, as also the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge(JD) No. 1, Bharatpur(for short 'the trial court') whereby civil suit filed by the plaintiffs -appellants for permanent injunction has been dismissed.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs -appellants filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent -defendant with the averments that the respondent published a residential colony namely, Shyama Prashad Mukherjee Nagar with the sanction of the State Government. In the said scheme, Plot No. 195 was shown with measurements of 79 x 89 ft. and it was shown as corner plot. In the south of this plot, Plot No. 194 was shown, as such it is clear that Plot No. 195 was one plot. Plot No. 195 was put to auction on 25.01.2000 wherein measurements were not shown in the map. The plaintiffs -appellants purchased Plot No. 195 in the said auction. It was pleaded in the suit that the defendant has made two plots out of original Plot No. 195 and they are proceeding to sell Plot No. 195 -A, which is part of Plot No. 195. Therefore, the plaintiffs -appellants prayed that the respondent -defendant be restrained from selling Plot No. 195 -A and they be directed to accept price of the auction for the rest of plot from the plaintiffs -appellants and get registered lease deed of entire Plot No. 195 in favour of the plaintiffs -appellants.
(3.) The defendant -respondent filed written statement and denied the averments of the plaint. It was the case of the defendant -respondent that they have all the rights to make sub division of the plots and as such, the plaintiffs -appellants have no right to ask the defendant -respondent to allot them the plot of the size they claimed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issues. The plaintiffs -appellants produced Dinesh Bansal as P.W.1 and exhibited eight documents. The defendant -respondent examined Banwari Lal Sharma as D.W.1 and exhibited ten documents. The trial court, after hearing the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2013 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs -appellants. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs -appellants filed appeal before the appellate court which too was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2014. Hence, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs -appellants.;