Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral):-The defendant/appellants by way of this regular second appeal, have challenged the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1990 passed by learned lower appellate court vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for permanent injunction stands decreed.

The appeal raises the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court is the outcome of misreading of admissible evidence and taking into consideration inadmissible evidence, thus perverse?”

2. The plaintiff/respondents brought a suit seeking injunction against the appellant/defendants from interfering in their ownership and possession over the property marked by letters A B C J H G F E D as described in the head-note of the plaint and shown in the site plan Ex.P.4 and also for possession of site marked by letters J H G K after demolition and removal of the construction raised thereon.

3. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that the property in dispute was the ownership of plaintiff No.1 out of which, the property marked A B C D has been sold by plaintiff No.1 in favour of plaintiff No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 30.1.1985,