1 S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.378/2007 Narrotam vs Smt. Bhanwri Bai Date of order : 3.12.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. BL Choudhary, for the appellant. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the owner of the property and the appellate court held that the appellant is the owner of the property, but still refused to grant injunction which was only that defendant should not alienate the property in dispute. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given by the appellate court. The trial court considered the arguments of the appellant in detail and, thereafter, refused to grant injunction. Substantially, I do not find any substantial questions of law involved in this appeal. Even if the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is considered then also there is no merit in the appeal because of the reason that according to the appellant, the appellant is the owner of the property and respondent is only the licencee then in 2 that situation, according to the appellant the respondent has no right to transfer the property then he can certainly establish his right by establishing his right in a suit when the sale deed is affected by the defendant, but seeking injunction only against the respondent will be of no consequence. Therefore, in fact, the appellant cannot be said to be even aggrieved person. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-