ORDER
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The present regular second appeal has been filed by the defendants. A challenge has been made to the judgments and decree of the learned courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent Kishori has been decreed. The suit was decreed in toto by the learned trial court. However, in appeal the learned first appellate Court modified the judgment of the learned trial court and after partly accepting the appeal, the injunction was issued qua the land comprised in Killa No. 21 of rectangle No. 25 measuring 6 kanals 16 mafias whereas the suit with regard to land comprised in Killa No. 1/1 of Rectangle No. 39 measuring 4 Kanals 4 marlas was dismissed.
2. The plaintiff Kishori filed a suit under the provision of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and the other persons mentioned in the list being co-sharers of Shamlat Patti Udha from dispossessing him from the land measuring 11 kanals comprising in Kill No. 21, Rectangle No. 25 and Killa No. 1/1 of rectangle No. 39 except in due course of law.
3. The plaintiff claimed that the land measuring 4 kanals 4marlas comprised in Killa No. 1/1 of rectangle No. 39 was in cultivating possession of Shadi who was his cousin and after his death, the plaintiff has come into possession of the said land as a successor-in-interest. The other land comprised in killa No. 21 measuring 6 kanals 16 marlas was stated to be in possession of the plaintiff from the time of his ancestors but the defendants wanted to forcibly dispossess him.
4. After putting in appearance the defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement. It was denied that the plaintiff was a tenant on the suit land or was in possession of the same. The defendants stated that Shadi son of Kurey died on July 16, 1963 and as such, the entries in the revenue record in his favour showing him to be in. possession of land comprising in killa No. 1/1 of rectangle No. 39 were wrong, it was ‘further stated that the plaintiff had left village Bhalapa in the year 1954 and thereafter he lived in village Mandawar and as such, the entries showing the plaintiff to be in possession of the land measuring 6 kanals 16 marlas were also wrong. The defendants claimed the possession over the suit land as members of the proprietary body of Shamlat Patti Udha.
5. The learned trial Court found that the plaintiff was in possession of the land in dispute and that he had never abandoned the possession thereof A further finding was given that the plaintiff being the cousin of Shadi was in possession of the suit land and there was not evidence to show that the plaintiff had not inherited the tenancy rights of the deceased Shadi. On that basis, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and the defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land except in due course of law.
6. The defendants felt aggrieved. They filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. The learned first appellate court partly accepted the appeal and found that the plaintiff was in cultivating possession of the land comprised in Killa No. 25/21 measuring 6 kanals 16 marlas and has not abandoned his tenancy rights in the suit land whereas it was found that the plaintiff was not in cultivating possession of the land comprising in Killa No. 39/1/1 measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas. On that basis the appeal ,was partly accepted and the judgment and decree of the learned trial court were modified and injunction was issued to the defendants qua the land comprised in Killa No. 21 of rectangle No. 25 with regard to 6 kanals 16 marlas of land.
7. The defendants have still fell aggrieved and have approached this court through the present regular second appeal.
8. I have head Shri C.B. Goel, the learned counsel for the appellants and with his assistance have also gone through the judgments of the courts below and the other documents available on the record of the case.
9. The finding with regard to the plaintiff being in possession of the land comprised in killa No. 25/21 measuring 6 kanals 16 marlas is duly supported from the document on the record. Even otherwise the finding with regard to possession of the plaintiff over the land measuring 6 kanals 16 marlas comprising in killa No. 21 rectangle No. 25 is a clear finding of fact which was not shown to be perverse in any manner.
10. In this view of the matter I do not find that there is any scope for interference in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
No costs.