Injunction cannot be granted against a true owner, and no substantial question of law arises if the plaintiff fails to prove their title over the property in dispute.

Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. -- This is a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has instituted a suit, being Original Suit No. 37 of 2010, for permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents for restraining them from interfering in his possession. The trial Court has found on the basis of the admission of the plaintiff that the name of the defendants are recorded as owner in the revenue records. The trial Court vide judgment and order dated 18th January, 2014 dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title over the land in dispute.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-appellant preferred a regular first appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2014, which also came to be dismissed and the lower appellate Court has affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. Dissatisfied with the said concurrent findings of the Courts below, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that insofar as the admission of the plaintiff in his evidence is concerned, that has been wrongly mentioned by the trial Court. He has also taken the Court to various factual aspects, which were raised before the trial Court.

4. I have heard Sri A.N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, and Sri Manu Khare, learned Advocate, who has filed caveat on behalf of the defendants-respondents and also put in appearance on their behalf.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no substantial question of law arise in this appeal. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is in respect of factual controversy, which has been decided by both the Courts below by recording a finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the property in dispute. It is trite that injunction cannot be granted against a true owner. Moreover, the issue raised in the second appeal, in my opinion, is not a substantial question of law.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. S.N. Goyal, AIR 2008 SC 2594 , has elaborately considered as to what is a substantial question of law and also the word "substantial", which is a prefixed before the 'question of law' and held as under:

"9.1 Second appeals would lie in cases which involve substantial questions of law. The word 'substantial' prefixed to 'question of law' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. 'Substantial questions of law' means not only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties. In the context of section 100, CPC, any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing in the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law. Where there is a clear and settled enunciation on a question of law, by this Court or by the High Court concerned, it cannot be said that the case involves a substantial question of law. It is said that a substantial question of law arises when a question of law, which is not finally settled by this court (or by the concerned High Court so far as the State is concerned), arises for consideration in the case. But this statement has to be understood in the correct perspective. Where there is a clear enunciation of law and the lower court has followed or rightly applied such clear enunciation of law, obviously the case will not be considered as giving rise to a substantial question of law, even if the question of law may be one of general importance. On the other hand, if there is a clear