JUDGMENT : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present second appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in Civil Appeal No. 02/2021 whereby the leave as prayed by the applicants/appellants to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Padampur, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No. 47/2009 has been rejected. Vide the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2019, the suit for permanent injunction as filed by the plaintiff Virendra Kumar had been decreed. 2. The facts of the case are that a suit for permanent injunction was preferred by one Virendra Kumar against three defendants namely, Kashmir Singh, Binder Singh and Sheyopath Ram. The said suit was decreed in favour of Virendra Kumar restraining the defendants to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and further to remove the gate of the room constructed by them opening towards the land of the plaintiff within a period of two months. Admittedly, in the said suit, Sheyopath Ram, defendant no. 3 remained ex-parte. 3. The present application for leave to appeal has been filed by applicants Reshmi Devi and others being the mother, brother and sisters of Sheyopath Ram. It has been averred by the applicants that Virendra Kumar was very well aware of the fact that the applicants were in actual possession of the property in question but he intentionally did not implead them as party defendants in the suit and impleaded only Sheyopath Ram who was in fact not in possession of the property. It has further been submitted that Magna Ram, husband/ father of the present applicants had an agreement to sell in his favour executed by Devi Lal who was in possession of the property. By virtue of the said agreement to sell, the present applicants were in possession of the property and were attempted to be dispossessed by Virendra Kumar in garb of the judgment and decree dated 28.8.2019. The grant for leave to appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.8.2019 was therefore, prayed for by the applicants. Vide the order impugned dated 22.3.2021, the said application as preferred by the applicants has been rejected against which the present second appeal has been preferred. 4. The grant for leave to appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.8.2019 was therefore, prayed for by the applicants. Vide the order impugned dated 22.3.2021, the said application as preferred by the applicants has been rejected against which the present second appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Court below erred in reaching to a finding that as Sheyopath Ram was a party to the suit, it cannot be assumed that the present applicants who are mother/siblings of Sheyopath Ram were not aware of the judgment and decree dated 28.8.2019. He submitted that it is clearly proved on record that the applicants were not aware of the impugned judgment and decree and also that they were in possession of the property in dispute and hence, deserved to be granted the leave to appeal. 5. Per contra, counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned and submitted that the same is totally in consonance with law. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The learned Court below, on basis of the material placed on record by the applicants, concluded that the applicants who claimed to be the owners of the property did not place on record any document to prove the same. The Court further held that Sheyopath Ram, who remained ex-parte in the suit, even preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, which was dismissed. Further, execution proceedings were initiated by the plaintiff wherein a site inspection by the Commissioner was made on 10.8.2015. Had the present applicants been in possession of the property, they would have definitely been aware of the said fact and could have taken appropriate steps to plead their case in the suit. In view of the said facts, the Court held that it cannot be concluded that the applicants were not aware of the impugned judgment and decree and further that any rights of the applicants have been affected by the impugned judgment and decree. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the findings as arrived by the learned Courts below does not deserve any interference, the same being totally in consonance with the material available on record. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the findings as arrived by the learned Courts below does not deserve any interference, the same being totally in consonance with the material available on record. To add to the findings of the Court below, this Court observes that even if the averment of the applicants that they had an agreement to sell in their favour executed by Devi Lal is considered to be true, the same would be of no avail as admittedly, in the earlier suit filed by the present plaintiff Virendra Kumar against Devi Lal and one another, Devi Lal was declared to be a trespasser and decree for eviction was passed in favour of Virendra Kumar. The applicants, who claim themselves to be owners of the property in question by virtue of an agreement to sell executed by Devi Lal, can even otherwise not claim any right once Devi Lal himself has been declared to be a trespasser by the Civil Court, which order has become final for all purposes. Secondly, it is admitted on record that the present applicants had even preferred objections under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC in the execution proceedings initiated against Devi Lal. The said objections were admittedly, rejected by the executing Court. Once the objections of the applicants have been rejected, the present application for leave to appeal qua the same judgment and decree cannot even otherwise be granted. Further, this Court is of the clear opinion that mere assertion of the applicants that they are affected and would be prejudiced by the impugned judgment and decree, cannot be a ground to grant the leave to appeal. The applicants have to demonstrate that their legal rights would stand jeopardised if the leave as prayed for is not granted. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in V.N. Krishna Murthy vs. Ravikumar, (2020) 9 SCC 501 held as under: “22. Though it has been vehemently contended before us and also pleaded before the High Court that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court affects the Appellants adversely. The Appellants have failed to place any material or demonstrate as to how the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court adversely or prejudicially affects them. Mere saying that the Appellants are prejudicially affected by the decree is not sufficient. The Appellants have failed to place any material or demonstrate as to how the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court adversely or prejudicially affects them. Mere saying that the Appellants are prejudicially affected by the decree is not sufficient. It has to be demonstrated that the decree affects the legal rights of the Appellants and would have adverse effect when carried out..... 23. The Appellants have thus failed to demonstrate that they are prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree in question or any of their legal rights stands jeopardized so as to bring them within the ambit of the expression ‘person aggrieved’ entitling them to maintain appeal against the decree. 24. In view of the facts and discussions, we find no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court dismissing the application filed by the Appellants seeking leave to appeal against the decree. The appeals, accordingly, stand dismissed. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.” 10. As observed in the preceding paras, the present applicants have not been able to show any legal right which could bring them within the ambit of “person aggrieved” so as to entitle them to maintain the appeal against the impugned judgment and decree. 11. In view of the above analysis and observations, this Court does not find any substantial question of law to have arisen in the present appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed. 12. All the pending applications and stay petition also stand dismissed.