Shri.Pandurang vs The Deputy Commissioner
2024 Latest Caselaw 12648 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Shri.Pandurang vs The Deputy Commissioner on 6 June, 2024

                                                -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617
                                                          RSA No. 100865 of 2016




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                             BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100865 OF 2016 (INJ-)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SHRI. PANDURANG
                        S/O BHARMANNA KAMBLE,
                        AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                        R/O: BIJAGARANI,
                        TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590014.

                   2.   SMT. CHANGUNA
                        W/O PRABHAKAR KAMBLE,
                        AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                        R/O: BIJAGARANI,
                        TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590014.

                   3.   SHRI. KALLAPPA S/O BALU KAMBLE,
                        AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                        R/O: BIJAGARANI,
                        TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590014.
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI          4.   SHRI. BHARMANI S/O NAGO KAMBLE,
Location: HIGH          AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
COURT OF                R/O: BIJAGARANI,
KARNATAKA               TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590014.
DHARWAD
BENCH
DHARWAD            5.   SHRI. KRISHNA S/O GUNDU KAMBLE,
                        AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                        R/O: BIJAGARANI,
                        TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590014.

                   6.   SHRI. SIDDAPPA S/O RAMA KAMBLE,
                        AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                        R/O: BIJAGARANI,
                        TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590014.

                   7.   SHRI. ARJUN S/O IRAPPA KAMBLE,
                        AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                              -2-
                                     NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617
                                      RSA No. 100865 of 2016




     R/O: BIJAGARANI,
     TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590014.

8.   SHRI. KRISHNA S/O IRAPPA KAMBLE,
     AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
     R/O: BIJAGARANI,
     TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590014.

9.   SHRI. HUVAPPA S/O GOVIND KAMBLE,
     AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
     R/O: BIJAGARANI,
     TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590014.

10. SHRI. MARUTI S/O RAMA KAMBLE,
    AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
    R/O: BIJAGARANI,
    TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI-590014.

                                                ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     BELAGAVI.

2.   THE TAHSILDAR &
     TALUKA EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,
     BELAGAVI.

3.   SHRI. YALLAPPA PIRAJI BELGAONKAR,
     AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
     R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
     TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

4.   SHRI. TARACHAND MONAPPA JADHAV,
     AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
     R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
     TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

5.   SHRI DAMU DATTU MORE,
     AGE: 63 YEARS,
     OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
     R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
     TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.
                             -3-
                                  NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617
                                    RSA No. 100865 of 2016




6.   SHRI JOTIBA DONDIBA MORE,
     AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
     R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
     TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

7.   SHRI BABAN BASAPPA KAMBLE,
     AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
     R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
     TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

8.   SHRI SUBRAO SHANKAR NAIK,
     AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
     R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
     TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

9.   SHRI RAJU KALLAPPA KAMBLE,
     AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
     R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
     TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

10. SHRI GOVIND SIDHU KAMBLE,
    AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

11. SHRI MADHUKAR LAXMAN KAMBLE,
    AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

12. SHRI SUBHASH KESHAV PATIL,
    AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

13. SHRI YALLAPPA TANAJI JADHAV,
    AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

14. SHRI KALLAPPA DONDIBA ASHTEKAR,
    AGE: 58 YEARS,
    OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.
                             -4-
                                    NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617
                                     RSA No. 100865 of 2016




15. SHRI VISHNU VITHAL KOLI,
    AGE: 60 YEARS,
    OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

16. SHRI SHRIRANG NARAYAN BHASKAR,
    AGE: 56 YEARS,
    OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

17. SHRI YESHWANT LAXMAN JADHAV,
    AGE: 68 YEARS,
    OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

18. SHRI SRIKANT JOTIBA ASHTEKAR,
    AGE: 52 YEARS,
    OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

19. SHRI PUNDALIK DAMU HALAKARNIKAR,
    AGE: 45 YEARS,
    OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

20. SHRI MARUTI KALLAPPA JADHAV,
    AGE: 72 YEARS,
    OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

21. SHRI VASANT KRISHNA PATIL,
    AGE: 42 YEARS,
    OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

22. SHRI CHIMANNA NARAYAN ASHTEKAR,
    AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.
                            -5-
                                 NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617
                                    RSA No. 100865 of 2016




23. SHRI LAXMAN BADAKU TARIHALKAR,
    AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

24. SHRI MARUTI VITHAL JADHAV,
    AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

25. SHRI RAMACHANDRA KRISHNA PATIL,
    AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

26. SHRI JOTIBA NINGAPPA MORE,
    AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

27. SHRI.GANAPATI SATAPPA PATIL,
    AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

28. SHRI.PANDU NAGU BHASKAR,
    AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

29. SHRI SADANAND ANAND MORE,
    AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

30. SHRI KALLAPPA MAHADEV ASHTEKAR,
    AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

31. SHRI WAMAN NINGAPPA BHASKAR,
    AGE: 75 YEARS,
    OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.
                            -6-
                                 NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617
                                   RSA No. 100865 of 2016




32. SHRI MAHADEV NARAYAN BHASKAR,
    AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

33. SHRI ANAND DONDIBA ASHTEKAR,
    AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

34. SHRI BANDU LAXMAN CHANDILKAR,
    AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

35. SHRI BHAVAKU KUMANNA BACHIKAR,
    AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

36. SHRI DEVAPPA CHIMANNA ASHTEKAR,
    AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

37. SHRI GOPAL KESHAV PATIL,
    AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

38. SHRI YALLAPPA LAXMAN GURAV,
    AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

39. SHRI BHUJANG DONDIBA MORE,
    AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

40. SHRI VASANT LAXMAN ASHTEKAR,
    AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.
                             -7-
                                    NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617
                                     RSA No. 100865 of 2016




41. SHRI MANOHAR NAMADEV PATIL,
    AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

42. SHRI BANDU SONU BHASKAR,
    AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.
43. SHRI PRABHAKAR ARJUN JADHAV,
    AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

44. SHRI PARASHARAM RAMU TARIHALKAR,
    AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

45. SHRI NARAYAN MAHADEV CHOUGULE,
    AGE: 60 YEARS,
    OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.
46. SHRI JAKAPPA RAMA MORE,
    AGE: 65 YEARS,
    OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

47. SHRI SHIVAJI MARUTI PATIL,
    AGE: 50 YEARS,
    OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

48. SHRI ABDUL MOHAMMAD NAVAGEKAR,
    AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

49. SHRI PUNDALIK NARAYAN JADHAV,
    AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.
                             -8-
                                  NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617
                                    RSA No. 100865 of 2016




50. SHRI RAJANIKANT DHONDIBA ASHTEKAR,
    AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

51. SHRI LAXMAN CHANGO ASHTEKAR,
    AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

52. SHRI TUKARAMI YALLAPPA BHASKAR,
    AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

53. SHRI GOPAL RAMA BHASKAR,
    AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

54. SHRI BALIRAM BHARMANNA BHASKAR,
    AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.

55. SHRI KALLAPPA BHARMANNA MORE,
    AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCULTURE,
    R/O: POST: BIJAGARNI VILLAGE,
    TAL: BELAGAVI-590014.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 01.12.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.464/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE V-ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                       -9-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617
                                                 RSA No. 100865 of 2016




                                 JUDGMENT

The present second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs

under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081

challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2016

passed in R.A.No.12/2016 by the Court of III Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi2 and the judgment and decree

dated 01.12.2015 passed in O.S.No.464/2011 by the

Court of V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi3 were

under, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs has

been dismissed with cost by the Trial Court which has

been upheld by the First Appellate Court.

2. The parties herein are referred to as per their

rankings before the Trial Court for the sake of

convenience.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, they are the

owners of the suit property i.e., Government land

constructed over plot bearing No.204 measuring 7 acres

Hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'

Hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court'

Hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617

20 guntas situated at Bijagarani village, Belagavi Taluka

and District4. That the Government of Karnataka granted

the suit property to the plaintiffs and from time

immemorial they are in possession and enjoyment of the

suit property for earning their livelihood. That the plaintiffs

are paying tax to the Government, but no receipt was

issued by the Village Accountant. That on 10.01.2011, the

defendants issued notice asking them to produce the

documents to show the authority of the plaintiffs to

construct the suit property. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed

a present suit for injunction.

4. The defendant Nos.3 to 55 entered appearance

before the Trial Court and filed written statement denying

the case of the plaintiffs. It is contended that, the suit is

not maintainable and the defendant Nos.3 to 55 are

farmers having cattle and the suit property is a Gornal

land used for the purpose of the grazing the cattle. That

the suit lands are enjoyed by the Bijagarani for more than

Hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617

200 years. That there is entry in the record of rights to

show the suit land as Gornal lands and the plaintiffs have

no title and possession over the suit property. That in the

year 2004, the plaintiffs and others tried to obstruct the

possession of the defendants and hence, O.S No.100/2004

was filed in which an ad-interim order of injunction was

granted on 22.03.2004 which was confirmed in MA

No.6/2004. That all the defendants have right of enjoying

the suit land for grazing cattle. Hence, the defendants

sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Consequent to the pleadings of the parties, the

Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession over the suit property as stated in the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants are interfering with their lawful possession over the suit property?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as sought in the suit?

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617

4. What order or decree?

6. The plaintiff No.8 examined himself as PW.1

and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. No oral or documentary

evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defendants.

The Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated

01.12.2015 dismissed the suit with cost. Being aggrieved,

the plaintiffs preferred R.A No.12/2016. The defendant

Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte. Defendant Nos.3 to 55

entered appearance before the First Appellate Court and

contested the said appeal.

7. The First Appellate Court framed the following

points for consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiffs established that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs established that the defendants tried to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the findings given by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court?

4. What order?

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617

8. The First Appellate Court vide its judgment and

decree dated 25.08.2016 dismissed the appeal with cost

and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the

Trial Court. Being aggrieved the present second appeal is

filed.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants/ plaintiffs

vehemently contended that, although, the plaintiffs are

not the owners of the suit property there are sufficient

materials on record to indicate that, the plaintiffs are in

possession of the suit property and hence, the Trial Court

and the First Appellate Court erred in not granting the

injunction as sought for. Hence, he seeks for allowing of

the above appeal and granting of the reliefs sought for.

10. The submissions of the learned counsel for the

appellants have been considered and the material on

record has been perused.

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617

11. It is forthcoming that, the Trial Court while

considering issue Nos.1 and 2 has recorded the following

findings:

i) Ex.P.14 is the record of rights of the suit

property where it shows at column No.9, the

name of Government of Karnataka as possessor

and owner of the suit property;

ii) With the documentary and oral evidence, the

plaintiffs have failed to make out that their case

in accordance with law or on facts as per

Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act;

iii) The claim of the plaintiffs cannot be considered

by way of permanent injunction against the

Government or of the public property;

iv) Mere issuance of notice to the plaintiffs does

not create any interference to the plaintiffs and

without any supportive documents of lawful

possession, the claim of the plaintiffs against

the suit property which is Government land

cannot be considered.

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617

12. The First Appellate Court while considering the

points framed, has recorded the following findings:

i) In order to prove that, the suit property is

granted in their favour by the State of

Karnataka, the plaintiffs have not placed a

single document before the Court;

ii) The plaintiffs have not placed any documents to

show that they are cultivating the suit property

and the same is in their possession and

enjoyment from time immemorial;

iii) Ex.P.14 is the RTC extract with respect to the

suit property, wherein it is shown that, an

extent of 7 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.

No.204 of Bijagarni Village, Uchagaon Hobali is

standing in the name of the State of Karnataka.

There is a corresponding entry in the said RTC

extract that, the said land is a gairan land and

3 acres out of 7 acres 20 guntas of land is

reserved for the purpose of burial ground/

grave yard;

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617

iv) As contended by the plaintiffs, if the State of

Karnataka had granted the suit property in their

favour, definitely there ought to have been an

entry in the RTC extract in that regard;

v) The plaint is silent regarding the date on which

the State of Karnataka granted the suit

schedule lands in favour of the plaintiffs;

vi) Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are the notices issued by the

Tahasildar, Belagavi to the plaintiff Nos.5 and 6

on 10.01.2011. The issuance of Ex.P.1 and

cannot be held as an illegal act. Issuance of

notices to plaintiff Nos.5 and 6 under the

provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act to

clear the encroachment and to produce the

grant orders if any made by the State

Government, will not amount to interference as

alleged by the plaintiffs;

- 17 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617

vii) The plaintiffs have not produced a piece of

paper to show that the suit property was

granted in their favour;

viii) Ex.P.1 and 2 does not prove the lawful

possession of the suit property by the plaintiffs

and the photographs produced by the plaintiffs

will not substantiate the aspect of grant and

their lawful possession over the suit property

from time immemorial.

13. It is clear and forthcoming from the concurrent

findings of facts recorded by both the Courts that, the

plaintiffs have failed to produce any material to

demonstrate that, they have been granted the suit

properties. It is further forthcoming that, the property is

standing in the name of the Government. As rightly, held

by both the Courts, mere issuance of Court notices (Ex.P.1

and Ex.P.2) to the plaintiff Nos.5 and 6 cannot be

construed as an interference of their lawful possession.

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7617

14. It is clear that, the Trial Court has adequately

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record

while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. It is further

forthcoming that, the First Appellate Court has

appropriately re-appreciated the entire material on record

in detail while dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs. The

plaintiffs have failed in demonstrating that any substantial

question of law arises for consideration in the present

appeal.

15. In view of the aforementioned, the above

appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit at the stage

of admission itself.

16. Since, the above appeal is dismissed

consideration of I.A No.1/2016 for ad-interim injunction

does not arise and is accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE PJ CT:GSM