JUDGMENT
V.D. Misra, J.
(1) This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Kangra, and Hoshiarpur District whereby he upheld the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs.
(2) The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the trial Court, brought a suit against the defendant (respondent) for declaration that they were the sole owners of a Khokha and Tharra forming part of Khasra No. 1070/342 and they had the right to use the street by virtue of their right of easement and the defendant (respondent) had no right to interfere with their possession and right to use the street. They prayed for a permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession and the use of the street. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs were nto the owners of the property in dispate and that they had nto acquired any right of easement and that the property in dispute was a part and parcel of Unit No. BI-4S-179 which he had purchased from the Custodian and the street and the Khokha in dispute formed part of this Unit. The trial Court had framed various issues including the issue to the effect whether the disputed place formed part of Khasra No. 1070/342 or of Khasra No 349. After recording the evidence of the parties the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the Additional District Judge Kangra, who upheld the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs.
(3) The appellants have nto been able to show any legal infirmity in the decision of the first Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the appellants drew my attention to Ex. P. 13, which is an agreement of sale entered into between Lala Gurdas Mal and Harbans Lal on one side and Lala Ghisa Ram and Raja Dharuy Dev Chand (Appellants-plaintiffs) on the other. This agreement related to the sale of two shops and a wooden stall, the latter being in the occupation of Jagan Nath as a tenant. This agreement was attested by Sham Sunder defendant. It was urged that by attesting this document Sham Sunder know that the wooden stall belonged to the vendors and nto to him. Similarly, my attention was drawn to Ex P 20 which was a letter addressed to the plaintiffs by Jagan Nath regarding the payment of rent in respect of Khokha in dispute. This has been scribed by Sham Sunder respondent. It was contended that the effect of this document is that the respondent knew that the said Khokha belonged to the plaintiffs Documents Public Witness 16/1, Public Witness 16/2 and Public Witness 16/3, extracts from the property tax register in respect of Khokha in dispute showing the plaintiffs as the owners, were also referred to. Copy of judgment of Senior Sub-Judge, Dharamsala, delivered by him as Rent Controller between the plaintiffs and Jagan Nath tenant in respect of Khokha (Ex. P. 18) was referred to for proving the ownership of the plaintiffs.
(4) All these documents have been taken into consideration by the two Courts below along with other evidence on record and they have given their findings in favor of the defendant-respondent. It is now well-settled that this Court in Second Appeal has no right to interfere with the findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court how soever gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be since it does dto amount to substantial error or defect in procedure. In Second Appeal the findings of fact are binding on this Court unless they are tainted with leagal infirmity. Issue of law cannto be said to arise merely because documents which are nto instruments of title or otherwise the direct foundation of title, have to be construed. In the instant case the documents referred to are neither the instruments of title nor are the direct foundation of title. The lower Appellante Court has given a finding of fact that the Khokha and the Tharra in dispute are nto situated on any portion of Khasra No. 1070/342 and are in fact, situated on Khasra No. 349 relating to Unit No. BI-4S-179, owned by the respondent.
(5) The appeal, is, therefore, dismissed with costs.