hand what is actually sold by the Defendants is not more than the area admeasuring 41 R purchased by them. There appears to be some unusable land on the eastern side, possibly affected by Nala. What Plaintiff expects is that Defendants must start measuring their land from the edge of Nala by taking into consideration even that unusable land. However, it is undisputed position that after executing of sale deed dated 14 June 1988 and after delivery of possession immediately thereafter, Plaintiff did not object to Defendants taking possession of the land by excluding the unusable portion of the land of eastern side affected by Nala. For the first time in the year 2014, and after selling all his land, the Plaintiffs came up fantastic idea of locating some additional portion in the land in addition to what is already sold by them only to Defendants and various other plot purchasers. In my view, since Plaintiffs never objected to Defendants actually possessing the land for 26 long years from 1988 to 2014, they could not have filed a suit complaining encroachment by the Defendants. It has been conclusively proved that the Defendants do not possess land in excess of area of 41 R. It is also a matter of fact that as on the date of filing of the suit, Plaintiffs did not remain owner in respect of even an inch of land out of total area admeasuring 82 R after deducting area of 41 R sold to the Defendants. No case is made out for interference in the Order of the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law involved in the Appeal. Appeal accordingly stands rejected. Since Appeal is disposed of, nothing survives in the Interim Application and it is also disposed of.
