AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—This is plaintiffs'' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court vide which the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent has been partly accepted and the judgment and decree of the lower Court has been modified to hold that the wall in dispute was joint among the parties and the respondent had a right to raise construction over it to the extent of half share.
The short point which requires consideration in this case is whether the disputed wall is exclusive wall of the plaintiff-appellants. The trial Court vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.05.2004 held that appellants were exclusive owners in possession of the disputed wall. However, in appeal filed by the defendant-respondents the lower Appellate Court on re-appraisal of evidence has recorded a finding of fact that wall in question was not exclusively of the plaintiff-appellants.
There is no such evidence on the record on the basis of which it can be argued that the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court is perverse. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this appeal.
No substantial question of law arises.
No other point was urged.