Court No. - 19 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 828 of 2010 Petitioner :- Lalman Respondent :- Phool Chand & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Krishna Kumar Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard Sri Kisrhna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant.
The suit of the plaintiff-appellant for permanent injunction and for possession
over the land in dispute has failed in both the courts below. It is admitted on
record that the disputed property is in possession of the defendant/respondent
since 20.6.1989. The plaintiff-appellant has not adduced any evidence to
establish his title over the land in dispute. He is also unable to prove that it is
his ancestral property. The courts below on consideration of the entire oral as
well as documentary evidence have concurrently recorded that the plaintiff-
appellant has no right, title or interest over the land in dispute and since he is
not in possession he is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.
In view of above, the matter stands concluded by finding of fact. No
substantial question of law arises in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.8.2010
BK