AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the appellants at length.
It is argued by counsel for the appellants that the appellate court has erred in reversing the finding of the lower
court. The lower court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and has restrained the respondents from opening the windows in the lane adjoining to the temple. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that the appellate court has erred in interpreting Exhibits 1, 2, 3 & 4 and holding that the documents pertained only to the property purchased by the respondents from Ramsukh. It is also contended that the permission was sought for the entire property and the municipality rejected the prayer for the entire property.
Counsel for the respondents has stated that no substantial question of law is involved in this case. The respondents purchased the property from Khemraj in 1952 and from Ramsukh in 1970, and the order of the municipality pertains to the property, which the respondents have purchased from Ramsukh, as is evident from Ex.4.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
The appellate court has rightly dealt with the document Ex.4, as Ex.4 clearly mentions about the property, which was purchased by the respondents from Ramsukh in 1970, as reference therein is made to Ex.5, which was executed by Ramsukh. Thus, the rejection by the municipality pertained only to the property, which was purchased by the respondents from Ramsukh.
The counsel for the appellants has only pointed towards the finding of facts and is not in a position to make out any substantial question of law.
The Apex Court, in Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi, (2016) 10 SCC 315, has held that roving enquiry about factual aspects of appeal is impermissible.
In view of the above as no substantial question of law is made out in this case, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The present appeal is therefore, dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed.