JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral):- The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal:- 1. Whether the courts below erred in granting the relief of injunction on the entries in jamabandi and khasra girdawari omitting to note that the defendants’ challenge to the plaintiffs suit was on the ground that as co-owners of the property and shown as having a share in the government property and recorded in the jamabani as jumla malkan hasab rasad kabza, the plaintiff could not seek for injunction? 2. The suit was for permanent injunction in relation to property of 3 bighas and 1 biswas. The plaintiff’s contention was that the plaintiff and his predecessor has been in possession of the property of several years prior to the suit. 3. The plaintiff would rely on the jamabandi and khasra girdawari recording the plaintiff’s name as being in possession as cultivator. The defence was that the plaintiff’s name alone has not been shown and in one entry alongwith the plaintiff a person by name of Faujee had been shown to be in joint possession and for yet another year, the plaintiff has been shown to be in joint possession with another person Rahmat. The trial court decreed the suit and in the appeal, the argument of the defendants was that the jamabandi for the year 1952-53 and for 1965-1966, the entries were shown as in the ownership of one Gulzari and the property being held by jumla malkan hasab rasad kabza, the defendants were in enjoyment of the property as co-owners of the property and the relief of injunction was not possible. The appellate court again dealt with every relevant jamabandi and khasra girdawari for the year 1966-1970 (Ex. P.6), khasra girdawari for the year 1979-80 (Ex. P.5 ), jamabandi for the year 1974-1975 (Ex. P.4), Khasra girdawari for the year 1974-1975 (Ex. P7), all of which stood in the name of the plaintiff Chand Khan and in Ex. P7 Faujee was also shown alongwith him. Fard and jamabandi under Exs. P.7 and P.8 respectively for 1974-1975 and 1979-1980 were also standing in the name of the plaintiff. The contention was that all of them must have been discarded since they were entered by the revenue officials by looking into previous years and it had not actually assessed the actual person in possession. Fard and jamabandi under Exs. P.7 and P.8 respectively for 1974-1975 and 1979-1980 were also standing in the name of the plaintiff. The contention was that all of them must have been discarded since they were entered by the revenue officials by looking into previous years and it had not actually assessed the actual person in possession. The trial court was concerned about the parties in possession in a suit for injunction and a reference to the proprietors in some of the earlier years could hardly be material to defeat the claim of the person in possession and the trial court, therefore, held that the plaintiff was entitled to injunction, which was confirmed in the appeal. 4. There is no substantial question of law at all which arise for consideration in this second appeal. The same is without merits and dismissed.