Permanent Injunction–Suit for–Decreed by the First Appellate Court–Justification–The First Appellate Court travelled beyond the scope of the suit and held that the suit land was in the ownership of the plaintiff whereas there was no such case of the plaintiff–The document Ex. 2 record the fact that in khasra no. 3759, the land has been shown as gair mumkin shop but it did not record the ownership of the plaintiff–Plaintiff failed to produce any document to show that his cabin is existing in khasra no. 41–The only fact which stood proved by the plaintiff was that he was in possession of the disputed cabin–Findings as regard to ownership are liable to be set aside–Findings of possession are upheld and defendants are restrained to the effect that plaintiff may not be displaced without following the due process of law.
