Sanjay K Agrawal, J.

The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the plaintiffs' second appeal is as under:- “Whether the Courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction atleast for the part which was possessed by the plaintiffs “[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court].

2. The suit land/house shown in red ink as per Schedule “B” annexed with plaint is originally belonged to Mr.Gyan Singh and dispute relates to that property. In Civil Suit No.4A/82 (State Bank v. Gyan Singh), the decree of Rs. 40,000/- was passed against him. It is the case of the defendants that defendant No.1 paid the said amount in compliance of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.4A/82 as Gyan Singh was unable to make payment of said decretal amount to the bank and in lieu of that Gyan Singh promised to execute the sale deed in her favour in respect of suit land situated at Shiv Talkies Road, Bus Stand, Bilaspur, but despite payment of the decreetal amount by defendant No.1, Gyan Singh did not execute the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 leading to filing of suit for specific performance of contract to execute the decree in her favour, which was registered as Civil Suit No.7A/93. The said civil suit was decreed ex-parte vide Ex.D/12 and in execution of said decree, sale deed (Ex.P/2) was executed by the Court and possession is said to have been delivered to defendant No.1 in accordance with law. Thereafter, the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect to the suit property bearing khasra Nos.223/1 and 223/2 stating inter-alia that they are title-holder and possession holder of the suit land and defendant No.1 taking benefit of her own wrong and by producing incorrect map of Gyan Singh got the sale deed executed in her favour, which is owned by plaintiff No.1 and trying to interfere with her peaceful possession, as such, plaintiff No.1 is title-holder of the suit land and as such, the decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction be granted in their favour.

3. The defendants herein filed their written statement denying the plaint allegation stating inter-alia that they are title-holder of the suit land pursuant to the decree of Civil Suit No.7A/93 (Jogender Kaur v. Gyan Singh) and sale deed has been executed in their favour by order of the Court and they have been delivered possession of the suit land in execution of the decree, as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any kind of declaration as well as permanent injunction.

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 30.4.2004 dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are neither title-holder nor possession holder of the suit land and defendant No.1 is titleholder and possession holder of the suit land pursuant to the decree passed by the Court in Civil Suit No.7A/93.

5. On appeal being preferred by the plaintiffs, the First Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

6. Questioning legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, in which substantial question of law has been framed by this Court, which have been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

7. Mr.Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that both the Courts below have concurrently erred in not granting the decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs are admittedly in possession of part of the suit land. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rame Gowda (dead) by LRS. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by LRS. And another,