IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 19 OF 2007 Rao Akil Ahmed (deceased) Through his legal heir and another. ………Plaintiffs/Appellants. Versus Umar Sad ………Defendant/Respondent. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the plaintiffs/appellants. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the defendant/respondent. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. This Second Appeal was admitted on 2.3.2007 on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the learned Court below erred in law by denying the long and exclusive possession merely in absence of any document of possession after the Khewat Khasra of 1935. 2. Whether the learned court below erred in law by denying the long and exclusive possession merely in absence of any document of possession after the Khewat Khasra of 1935. 3. Whether the learned Courts below were justified dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit for injunction based on long and exclusive possession merely in absence of any document of the present day.” 2. All the three substantial questions of law formulated by the Court at the time of admission in fact can be summed as one substantial question of law which is whether the plaintiff was able to discharge his burden in order to claim the relief of injunction by submitting enough evidence before the court below. 3. Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the plaintiffs/appellants and Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for defendant/respondent. 4. The short case of the plaintiffs/appellants before the Trial Court was that they are in exclusive possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 205, as per Settlement of 2 1935 (area 2 Bigha 13 Biswa), situate at Village Jwalapur, District Haridwar. The revenue record show name of one Nazar Mohammad. In the suit (bearing O.S. No. 65 of 2005), the plaintiffs/appellants have claimed themselves to be the heirs of Nazar Mohammad, and have claimed that after the death of Nazar Mohammad, his property devolved on them and they are in exclusive possession of this property. However, to substantiate this claim, no evidence was furnished by the plaintiffs/appellants before the Trial Court nor any witness examined. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs/appellants had not been able to prove their case and the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants was dismissed vide order dated 27.8.2005. In appeal (bearing Civil Appeal No. 55/2006), the lower Appellate Court also came to the same finding that the plaintiffs/appellants had not been able to discharge their burden and the appeal of the plaintiff/appellants was also dismissed on 5.8.2006. 5. From the perusal of the records, it is clear that the plaintiffs/appellants have not been able to produce any evidence in order to substantiate their claim on the disputed property. The suit of the plaintiffs/appellants was, therefore, rightly dismissed and so was the Appeal filed by the plaintiffs/appellants. This Court, therefore, holds that on the basis of evidence furnished by the plaintiffs/appellants before the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court, no case was made out in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants and he was not been able to discharge his burden. 6. All the three substantial questions of law, on which the present Second Appeal has been admitted which by and large on the issue as to whether the plaintiff had 3 furnished enough evidence to substantiate or prove his claim for the relief of injunction being claimed by him, are decided in negative for the reasons already stated above. 7. The instant Second Appeal is, therefore, absolutely without merit and is liable to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Rathour (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.5.2010