Viney Mittal, J.
1. The defendant-Municipality, Thanesar has approached this Court through the appeal.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. It was claimed that he along with others were owner in possession of the land as detailed in the plaint. In the aforesaid land, the Municipal Committee has no right, title or interest. The defendant-committee had served a notice upon the plaintiff under Sections 208/209 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 claiming that the plaintiff had raised construction without the prior permission of the defendant-Committee and as such the same was liable to be removed. It was claimed that the aforesaid notice was without jurisdiction and the construction was more than two years old on the date of the notice.
3. The defendant-Municipal Committee contested the suit. It was claimed that Khasra No. 204/7 is owned and possessed by the Municipal Committee and it had installed a tubewell therein. It was claimed that near Khasra 'No. 204/7 unauthorised construction of one room for tethering cattle etc. had been raised by the plaintiff without permission of the defendant-Committee and as such notice under Section 28/209 of the Act was issued to the plaintiff which was legal and proper.
4. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The matter was taken up in appeal. The learned first appellate court reappraised the entire evidence and on such reappraisal, the learned first appellate court found as under:-
'On a consideration of the entire mass of evidence adduced in the present case it is clear that the plaintiff was in possession of Rect. No. 204 Khasra No. 7 (1-11) on account of being a co-sharer in Patti malian Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat except the portion on which tubewell of the Municipal Committee is constructed. I, therefore, modify the finding of the learned trial court on issue No. 1 to the effect that the notice in question was illegal and void in respect of the said Khasra number except the tubewell. Finding of the learned trial court on issue No. 1 is accordingly modified.'
5. Now the present appeal has been filed by the defendant-Municipal Committee challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court.
6. I have heard Shri Rajesh Chaudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Committee and with his assistance have also gone through the record of the, case.
7. In my considered view, the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court has been given on the basis of the appreciation of the entire evidence. In fact the learned first appellate court has found that since the defendant-Municipal Committee has failed to produce the land record available with it, therefore, an irresistible presumption under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act is liable to be raised against the defendant-Committee. Although Shiv Kumar DW1 had appeared on behalf of the Committee and he has admitted that he had drawn a map of the property in dispute in property register for the year 1978-79 but still no such map was ever produced on record.
8. In view of the aforesaid fact and finding recorded by the learned first appellate court, as noticed above, it is apparent that the claim of the plaintiff has been restricted by the learned first Appellate Court and the tubewell installed by the Municipal Committee has been excluded from the injunction issued in favour of the plaintiff.
9. Nothing has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding recorded by the learned first appellate court was in any manner erroneous and was contrary to the record.
10. No other point has been urged.
11. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any scope for interference inthe present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.