No injunction can be sought against the real owner of the property, as evidenced by the documentary evidence.

1. - This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Ajmer in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2009 (44/2004) titled Lal Chand v. Smt. Munni Devi and another , affirming the judgment and decree dated 2.1.2004 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 58 of 1995 titled Lal Chand v. Munni Devi and another whereby the suit for permanent injunction, has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendants with the averments that House No. 2/135 = 8/247 situated at Ghosi Mohalla, Patti Katla, Ajmer is in her possession and the said property was sold by Bhanwar Lal Swarnkar to Prem Chand with an agreement that the property will be re-purchased by them within eight years. Subsequently, there was litigation between the predecessor in title as well as the plaintiff but as regards the present defendants, no written statement was filed by them and since no written statement was filed, no issue was framed. However, the controversy raised in the civil suit was decided on the basis of the averments of the plaint as well as the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff. In support of the averments of the plaint, the plaintiff Lal Chand examined himself as PW-1 and in documentary evidence, the plaintiff produced Ex.l the sale deed in favour of Bhanwar Lal, Ex.2 sale deed of the property by Bhanwar Lal in favour of Prem Chand and Ex.3 the certified copy of the sale deed by Prem Chand to Munni Devi (present defendant).

3. After considering the avements made in the plaint and the oral evidence of the plaintiff as also the documentary evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that in the last sale deed in favour of the defendant Munni (Ex.3) the possession of the defendant has been shown. Apart from the above, it is well settled principle that the documentary evidence will prevail over the oral evidence and further, no injunction can be sought against the real owner and thus, the trial court dismissed the suit. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiff-appellant filed an appeal. The lower appellate court, after considering the matter in detail, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and rejected the appeal.

4. Submission of the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is that the plaintiff is in possession of the property and he cannot be dispossessed without following the due process of law.

5. I have gone through record of the second appeal and further considered the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.

6. On consideration of the same, I am of the view that both the courts below have passed the judgment and decree on the basis of documentary evidence as well as well settled principle of law that no injunction can be issued against the real owner of the property, therefore, the submission of the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has no force. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed.

*******