Second appeal dismissed, leaving the appellate court’s rejection of the injunction suit undisturbed.

The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction concerning agricultural properties, claiming title under registered sale deeds and possession supported by patta and payment of kist.

The appellants, defendants 2 and 3, relied on an earlier sale agreement, a decree for specific performance in O.S. No. 231 of 2004, and a sale deed executed through Court; they claimed possession under those proceedings.

The trial court decreed the plaintiff’s suit, while the first appellate court reversed that decision and dismissed the suit. The appellants brought this second appeal.

Whether the first appellate court erred in rejecting the plaintiff’s claim to injunction in light of the parties’ competing documents and claims of possession.

Whether a suit seeking injunction without recovery of possession was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, as the appellants contended.

Whether the first appellate court erred in dismissing the appellants’ application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

The substantial questions of law included whether the suit was maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act without a prayer for recovery of possession and whether the first appellate court erred in dismissing an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

Although the judgment records those questions, it cites no statutory text, precedent, or distinct legal test in its reasoning; it does not set out a substantive rule governing either provision.

The Court noted that the first appellate court had reconsidered the oral and documentary evidence concerning the competing sale deeds, mortgage deed, sale agreement, and decree in O.S. No. 231 of 2004.

It concluded that there was no sufficient reason to interfere and answered the substantial questions against the appellants.

The judgment does not explain how the evidence resolved the competing claims of possession or separately analyze the Section 34 and Order XLI Rule 27 questions.

The Court made no order as to costs and dismissed the connected miscellaneous petitions.