therefore, the defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession of the suit land bearing Khasra Nos.604 & 605 situate at Link Road, Bilaspur. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the suit land bearing Khasra No.604, area 0.05 acre, and Khasra No.605, area 0.10 acre, was sold by plaintiff No.2 vide Ex.D-12 in favour of original defendant No.1 Harnam Singh Sengar on 31-12-1965 and pursuant to that, he has been placed in possession and therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction of that land. The first appellate Court has affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court and also confirmed the said finding on appeal preferred by the plaintiffs and also held that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land relying upon the statement of Satish Singh (PW-3), who is also plaintiff No.5 (paragraph 35) and who has claimed possession while filing his statement on oath under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, as such, the plaintiffs are not in possession. As such, the trial Court and the first appellate Court, both, have held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction, as the suit land has admittedly been transferred by plaintiff No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and they are also not in possession. Concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below that the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to law. The second appeal involves no substantial question of law.
