( 1 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has addressed very elaborate arguments and has even tried to take me through the pleadings and the evidence led in the case. But inspite of the persuasive arguments addressed, I am afraid, no legal infimity in the conclusion of the lower appellate court on the question of possession of the plot in suit has been made out. It is noteworthy that the defendant did not claim any title in himself and all that was said was that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the plot in suit. Before me, no attempt has been made to question the conclusion on the title of the plaintiffs. Arguments have been confined to the limited point that the evidence on the record does clearly establish the possession of the defendant with the result that no injunction could have been granted in this case in favour of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendant from using the plot in suit. On this point also, the conclusion of the Lower Appellate Court is one of fact.

( 2 ) SHRI Dina Nath Bhasin has, however, as a last resort attempted to argue that there is no evidence in support of the conclusion of the lower Appellate Court. The evidence of Shiv Dayla,