ORDER

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The plaintiff is in appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in second appeal. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration that it alone was entitled to the management of the "kabarsthan" and the usufructs of the trees standing thereon and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate court affirmed the decree passed by the trial court, concurring with the findings recorded by the trial court. The second defendant in the suit approached the High Court by filing second appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment and decree of the first appellate court affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The second appeal was admitted after formulating the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the plaintiff which has filed the suit for bare injunction has proved its possession of the suit properties on the date of suit and whether the courts below have erred in not considering the relevant