Judgment VINEY MITTAL and j. JJ. 1. The plaintiff has lost before the learned first appellate Court. He filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property in any manner. He claimed that the land in dispute had been allotted to him by the Canal authorities and that he was in possession thereof. The defendant had taken illegal possession of the suit property and was running a dhaba in the said land. The defendant was trying to alienate the suit property. 2. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial court. The defendant was restrained from selling or transferring in any manner the suit property except in due course of law. The defendant took up the matter in appeal. Learned first appellate court reappraised the evidence and noticed that a specific plea had been raised by the plaintiff in the plaint itself that the defendant had taken illegal possession of the suit property in the year 1998 and was running a dhaba in the suit property. In these circumstances, learned first appellate court observed that the only remedy available with the plaintiff was to file a suit for possession in accordance with law. The plaintiff was also held to be neither owner of the suit property nor in possession of the same. 3. Consequently, the appeal field by the defendant was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. It is not disputed that a specific plea has been raised by the plaintiff in the plaint itself that since the year 1998 the defendant had taken the possession of the suit property. Although the plaintiff had claimed that the possession of the defendant was illegal but all the same the fact remained that the plaintiff was out of possession of the suit property. 4. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction was not legally maintainable. The observations made by the learned first appellate court cannot be held to be erroneous in any manner. 5. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. The observations made by the learned first appellate court cannot be held to be erroneous in any manner. 5. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Before parting with this judgment, it is made clear that if the plaintiff has any right in the suit property, he would be at liberty to seek possession of the suit property from the defendant in accordance with law. Dismissed.