SBCSA NO.305/2007 – MUMTAJ V/S KARIM BUX . : JUDGMENT DATED 23.7.2008 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.305/2007 Mumtaj versus Legal Representatives of late Sh. Karim Bux PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.R.K.Soni, for the appellant. Mr.G.R.Singhvi, for the respondents. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 23rd July, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel. 2. This appeal arises out of the order of the first appellate Court dtd.21.5.2005 whereby the learned first appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dtd.31.3.2001 dismissed the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff – appellant against the defendant seeking injunction against the defendant for raising construction on the disputed site. SBCSA NO.305/2007 – MUMTAJ V/S KARIM BUX . : JUDGMENT DATED 23.7.2008 2/3 3. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the suit property in question was partitioned long back and all the plaintiff and defendants were living separately in their respective portion of the suit property. The Courts below have relied upon the document of the year 1943 wherein the predecessor of the present plaintiff had clearly admitted that the predecessor of the respective defendants were living separately in their respective portion, in para 2 of the plaint referred to at page 4 of the trial Court's judgment. The trial Court has also relied upon the order passed by the Dy. Custodian dtd.19.6.1957 referred to in para 22 wherein on account of one of the persons Vazir going to Pakistan, his evacuee property to the extent of 7/60 was put to auction and one of the defendants before the trial Court purchased the same in auction. In that order of the Dy. Custodian dtd.19.6.1957 also, it was stated that all the brothers and their sons have their separate portion of the house in their possession and there are six portions in all. The appellate Court has also gone in detail into respective findings and the evidence on record and both the Courts below found that the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction against the defendants for raising construction on their respective portions. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that no substantial questions of law arises in the present second appeal. The SBCSA NO.305/2007 – MUMTAJ V/S KARIM BUX . : JUDGMENT DATED 23.7.2008 3/3 appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.19 Ss/-