JUDGMENT Hon’ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 7.11.2006 passed by the first appellate Court whereby it has allowed the respondent-plaintiffs appeal and has decreed the suit for permanent injunction. 3. The respondent came before the trial Court with a case in his plaint that he is having possession over the disputed land area 150 sq. yard by virtue of an allotment by Gaon Sabha and that the said possession is continuing since 1987. The defendants were trying to disturb the possession in one or the other manner and therefore the relief. The suit was contested by the appellants-defendants stating that the property in respect of which the plaintiff claimed his title is actually not belonging to him nor it was ever alloted in his favour by the Gaon Sabha. It is a piece of land, which has been duly allotted in the year 1994 for construction of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial. The plaintiff has no right to get the relief of permanent injunction from the Court. 4. The trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed several issues and while giving its findings held that the property in question is not proved to be a property belonging to the plaintiff and that it is a land allotted for construction of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial. The trial Court also did not find the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit. 5. The plaintiff against this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court went in appeal before the lower appellate Court where after hearing the parties the Court has found that the plaintiffs possession over the disputed property is fully established from the evidence and that the evidence available on this point was not properly appreciated by the trial Court. Accordingly, having found the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land, the suit has been decreed against the defendants, who have neither any possession over the said land nor have any title therein. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that since the plaintiff has failed miserably to establish his title in the disputed property, no relief should have been granted in his favour by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in its right perspective. 7. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that since the plaintiff has failed miserably to establish his title in the disputed property, no relief should have been granted in his favour by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in its right perspective. 7. I do not agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants. As regards the possession of the plaintiff in the disputed property the lower appellate Court has elaborately gone into all aspects of the matter and has considered properly the entire evidence available in that regard including the reports of Amin and Commissioner. It is admitted fact that the defendants appellants themselves do not possess any title in the disputed property, rather they claim the property as a piece of land allotted for construction of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial. However, if the land is found in possession of a person, who might not be having title in the same, the defendants have no right to disturb that possession and the law on this point is well established that a person only on the basis of his possession can claim such relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, who do not possess better title in the said property. It is on this line that the lower appellate Court has given its findings and has decreed the suit. The Court below has also given several citations of the case law in this regard. Even if there is some dispute with regard to possession of the respondent plaintiff over the disputed property, this possession is obviously not held by the defendants. If the land was allotted for construction of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial, the property should reasonably be said to be in possession of the Gaon Sabha and not the defendants. Therefore, to say that the defendants have right to disturb the plaintiffs possession in the disputed property will not be a correct proposition. The defendants have absolutely no right or title in the disputed property and in case the Court below has found the plaintiff to be in possession of the disputed property, the relief so granted in his favour cannot be found to be erroneous for any interference in a second appeal. The defendants have absolutely no right or title in the disputed property and in case the Court below has found the plaintiff to be in possession of the disputed property, the relief so granted in his favour cannot be found to be erroneous for any interference in a second appeal. The findings of the lower appellate Court are all factual and there is no scope for any interference in the same under Section 100, C.P.C. 8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the appeal is without substance and merit, which fails and is hereby dismissed. ————