Judgment: J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This appeal filed by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2003 passed by 4th Additional district Judge, (Fast Track) Dabra, District-Gwalior in Civil Regular Appeal No. 12-A/2003 whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2000 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class II, Dabra in Civil Suit no. 26-A/1987 has been affirmed dismissing the suit of plaintiff seeking permanent injunction. 3. Plaintiff's case in brief is that he is the owner of the property admeasuring 90'x40' situated in Ward No. 10, Dabra as per the boundaries described in the suit. Alongwith the Map, Scratch Map has been filed wherein the front portion of the suit house indicated by A, B, C, D has been shown to be the disputed house. It is said that he has purchased the property from one Kallu by a sale deed dated 10.07.1943 thereafter permission for construction was granted by Municipal Council, Dabra on 30.11.1962. Abruptly on 02.02.1987 the Encroachment Removal Gang of the Municipal Council, Dabra reached on spot and took-up the Tin Shed holding in the Trolley and removed the front portion of the house which is shown to be a disputed property. By filing a suit permanent injunction restraining defendant to not to remove the said encroachment has been filed. 4. Defendant Municipal Council has filed the Written Statement contending that the suit property does not belong to the predecessor Kallu but infact it is a Najool land. The encroachment made by the plaintiff has rightly been removed. However, the injunction should not be granted. 5. After adducing the evidence, trial court recorded a finding that plaintiff has failed to prove the title of the predecessor Kallu as well as of his own producing a registered sale deed. In absence to it and as per the reply of the defendant, the suit land is a part of Survey No. 1018/5 and the permission was taken by the plaintiff from the Council on the government land, therefore, being encroacher, the said encroachment has rightly been removed. However in such circumstances, plaintiff is not entitled to seek injunction. 6. Appellate court after appreciating the documents Exhibits P-1 to P-12 confirmed such finding dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. However, this appeal has been preferred. 7. However in such circumstances, plaintiff is not entitled to seek injunction. 6. Appellate court after appreciating the documents Exhibits P-1 to P-12 confirmed such finding dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. However, this appeal has been preferred. 7. Learned counsel representing the appellant has strenuously urged that the appellant is in settled possession of the suit property whereupon the permission to raise construction has been granted by the Municipal Council after following due process of law. However, drawing inference of not having ownership of the suit property, finding as recorded by the two courts below, is unsustainable in law. In support of such contention reliance has been placed on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. and another reported in (2004) 1 SCC 769 . In view of the aforesaid, it is urged that the substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, however it may be admitted for final hearing. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is apparent that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from one Kallu. After purchasing from him, possession of the said land was taken and permission to raise construction has been obtained from the Municipal Council. After such permission, the construction was raised wherein he is residing. Therefore, he cannot be said to be an encroacher and having in settled possession, it cannot be disturbed by following due process of law. But, after perusal of such pleadings, to establish such fact plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his title on the suit land. It is seen from the record that no document regarding ownership of the predecessor Kallu is available on record. In addition thereto, the alleged sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is also not a registered document. The copy of the said sale deed has also not been produced before the Court. In absence thereto, looking to the defence of the defendant and the other reports, which have been appreciated by the appellate court, it is apparent that the suit land is a part of the Survey No. 1081/5 belongs to Nazool. However relying upon the said document and in absence of any material document filed by the plaintiff to prove his case, the suit seeking permanent injunction has rightly been dismissed. 9. However relying upon the said document and in absence of any material document filed by the plaintiff to prove his case, the suit seeking permanent injunction has rightly been dismissed. 9. It can safely be observed that even in a suit for permanent injunction, to prove his legal and valid possession, the relevant document ought to be filed, which is missing in the present case. However, the finding of fact recorded by the two courts below that after removal of encroachment by the Municipal Council it cannot be inferred that the appellant was in settled possession of the suit property having right therein. In absence thereof, the concurrent finding recorded by the two courts below cannot be interfered with. 10. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on the facts of the case particularly when from the suit premises the encroachment has already been removed on the date of filing of the suit. 11. In view of foregoing discussion, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, hence it is dismissed at admission stage. 12. C.C. as per rules.