JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 24.10.2007 passed by District Judge, Pali partly modifying the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Marwar Junction. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the respondents, who are mother and sister of the appellant Abdul Naeem and mother-in-law and sister-in-law of appellant Smt. Tabassum filed a suit against the appellants for permanent injunction with the averments that they were in possession of the portion of suit property and the defendants-appellants were bent upon dispossessing them from the suit property; the plaintiffs have no other place to live and, as such, the defendants be restrained from evicting the plaintiffs from the suit property and not to interfere with their possession. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendants-appellants disputing the averments made by the plaintiffs; the plea raised by the mother regarding family arrangement etc. were denied. It was claimed that the mother entered the suit premises for ten days and is now seeking injunction regarding the suit property, which was otherwise, possessed by the appellants. 4. The trial court framed five issues. Evidence was led by the parties and after hearing both the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that merely because the property has not been partitioned as per Muslim law between the parties, the defendants cannot be permitted to dispossess the plaintiffs by taking law in their own hands; the possession of the plaintiffs was proved but they failed to prove that they came in possession based on certain partition. Ultimately, the trial court passed decree against the defendants not to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property and not to interfere with their possession. It was also clarified that the defendants would be free to evict the plaintiffs by following due procedure of law. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed first appeal, wherein, the first appellate court modified the decree and directed that the defendants be not evicted from the suit property without following the due procedure of law and no interference be made in their possession of the suit property. 6. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed first appeal, wherein, the first appellate court modified the decree and directed that the defendants be not evicted from the suit property without following the due procedure of law and no interference be made in their possession of the suit property. 6. Having considered the judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the trial court and having heard learned counsel for the appellants, it is noticed that both the courts have concurrently found that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and the defendants can only evict them by following due procedure of law and have directed that their possession be not interfered with. 7. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are mother and sister of the defendant-appellant Abdul Naeem and once she is held to be in possession of the suit property, the defendants cannot be permitted to evict the plaintiffs without due procedure of law. No fault can be found in the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below cannot be said to be perverse. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******