JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs appellants, having perused the impugned judgment and decree and having examined the record, this Court is satisfied that this second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and does not merit admission. 2. On 01.12.1993, the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff Kashiram (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives) alleging his ownership over a piece of land situated at Hanumangarh Town in Ward No.6, Harijan Basti measuring 94.09 feet on the eastern side, 94.09 feet on the western side, 114 feet on the northern side and 114 feet on the southern side; and its south-eastern portion of 33 x 45 feet size having been given about 15 years before filing of the suit to the defendant, younger brother of the plaintiff, for residence. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was trying to alter the property after the permission to occupy the same was revoked on 30.11.1993; and was trying to remove out the western side wall and to take possession of about 3 feet land. Though styled and framed as a suit for injunction, the plaintiff claimed decree in the terms that the defendant be directed to hand him over possession of the property in dispute and not to remove the western side wall and not to encroach over the property on the western side. The defendant denied all the plaint averments and also made a counter-claim for restraining the plaintiff from interfering with his possession on the land in dispute. The defendant denied all the plaint averments and also made a counter-claim for restraining the plaintiff from interfering with his possession on the land in dispute. The matter was put to trial on the following issues: "(1) vk;k oknxzLr Hkw[k.M oknh dk iV~Vk'kqnk o fuekZ.k'kqnk gS ftlds nf{k.kh iwohZ dksus esa cus edku lkbZt 33 x 45 QhV ij izfroknh] oknh dh vuqKk ls nkok nk;jh ls 15 lky iwoZ ls fjgk;'k djrk jgk gS\ & oknh (2) vk;k oknh us fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M fgLls ij izfroknh dks nh x;h fjgk;'k dh vuqKk fnukad 30-11-1993 dks lekIr dj nsus ds dkj.k oknh mDr Hkw[k.M fgLlk izfroknh ls okfil izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & oknh (3) vk;k oknh] fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij izfroknh }kjk gVkbZ tk jgh nhokj o vU; fuekZ.k dk;Z dks :dokus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & oknh (4) vk;k izfroknh fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij xr 30&35 o"kksZa ls iSr`d lEifRr ds :i esa oknh dh lgefr izkIr gksus ds dkj.k crkSj ekfyd fuokl dj jgk gS\ & izfroknh (5) vk;k nkok gktk de U;k; 'kqYd ij gS rFkk bl U;k;ky; ds {kS=kf/kdkj dk ugha gS\ & izfroknh (6) vk;k izfroknh] oknh ds fo:) fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M dk fu;eu vkns'k fujLr djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & izfroknh (7) vk;k izfroknh] oknh ds fo:) fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij vius dCtk esa csn[kyh o gLr{ksi fd;s tkus ds fo:) LFkkbZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & izfroknh (8) vuqrks"kA " 3. While deciding issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 together, the learned Trial Court has examined the material available on record including the patta Ex.1 as relied upon by the plaintiff and has found that in the said patta, the plaintiff's land was shown having the measurements of 31.6 feet on the eastern side, 31.6 feet on the western side, 38 feet on the northern side, and 38 feet on the southern side; and the said patta was not at all relatable to the size of the land as stated in paragraph 2 of the plaint. The learned Trial Court has also noticed that the patta in question was issued on 15.09.1975 whereas in the year 2001 the plaintiff's witnesses admitted that the elder son of the defendant was 40 years of age and was born at the suit property that was in possession of the defendant. The learned Trial Court has also noticed that the patta in question was issued on 15.09.1975 whereas in the year 2001 the plaintiff's witnesses admitted that the elder son of the defendant was 40 years of age and was born at the suit property that was in possession of the defendant. The learned Trial Court has disbelieved the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was a permissive occupant after noticing that the patta in question was issued about 26 years before recording of the evidence but then, 40 years old son of the defendant was born at the suit property, obviously much before issuance of the patta. The learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit and conversely an injunction has been issued against the plaintiff not to interfere with use of the suit property by the defendant. The learned First Appellate Court has endorsed the findings of the learned Trial Court. A submission made before the learned First Appellate Court that the measurements in the patta in question ought to be read in 'Yards' and not in 'Feet' has been rejected with reference to the contents of the document Ex. 1 and such case having nowhere been set up by the plaintiff that the measurements as stated in the patta ought to be read in 'Yards' though stated in 'Feet'. 4. Seeking to assail the judgment and decree aforesaid, it is contended in this second appeal by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the learned subordinate Courts have erred in giving preference to the oral evidence over the documentary evidence; that the defendant has, admittedly, no title in his favour and he was only a trespasser on the suit property and a trespasser could not have been granted the relief of injunction. Learned counsel also submitted that issue No.6 was framed in the matter if the defendant was entitled to get declared illegal the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff and such issue was not pressed by the defendant; hence, according to the learned counsel, the title of the plaintiff being clear, the suit ought to have been decreed and for the defendant having no right or title, his prayer for injunction ought to have been refused. The submissions remain meritless. 5. The submissions remain meritless. 5. Fundamental aspect of the matter remains that the land in dispute as stated by the plaintiff in paragraph 2 of the plaint is not referable to his alleged document of title i.e., the patta Ex.1, particularly in relation to the measurements, as noticed supra. For such fundamental discrepancy, the plaintiff attempted to suggest before the First Appellate Court that the measurements in patta be read in the unit of 'Yard' and not in 'Foot'. The submission was obviously incorrect for being contrary to the contents of the document itself. From the said document Ex.1, if at all, a plot of about 31'6" x 38' size could be considered available with the plaintiff; and thus, his suggestion of having given a licence to the defendant to reside at 33' x 45' size land, could not have been believed; and has rightly been rejected by the learned subordinate Courts. The suggestion that the learned subordinate Courts have given preference to the oral evidence than to the documentary evidence is not correct. The documentary evidence itself stands contrary to the case set up by the plaintiff. 6. Of course, the oral evidence including the statements of plaintiff's witnesses on the other aspects of the matter has been taken into consideration, and rightly so, whereby the defendant is found in possession of the suit property much before the date of issuance of patta Ex 1. Once the defendant was found to be in possession of the property in question in his independent right and the plaintiff failed to establish his title in relation to the property in possession of the defendant, no relief could have been granted to the plaintiff. On the contrary, if the present plaintiffs were interfering with the possession of the defendant, they could have definitely been injuncted against. The learned subordinate Courts have rightly done so. 7. In the fact situation of the present case, once the finding was reached that plaintiff has no right in relation to the land in possession of the defendant, the question as involved in issue No.6 was rendered wholly redundant; and even if the defendant has not pressed upon the same, that is of no avail to the present appellants. 8. There is no force in this second appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed summarily.Second appeal Dismissed. *******