AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 197 wordsSanjay K. Agrawal, J
This is the appellants / plaintiffs second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The suit filed by the appellants / plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court and it has been affirmed
by the First Appellate Court.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below holding that appellants / plaintiffs are not
entitled for declaration of title and permanent injunction is perverse and contrary to record.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants on question of admission.
The trial Court has clearly held that plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the suit land and the said finding has been duly affirmed by the First
Appellate Court. The aforesaid finding recorded by the two Courts below are the finding of facts based on material available on record which is
neither perverse nor contrary to record and as such, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal for determination.
Accordingly, the second appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.