IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 51 of 2008 Harvansh Singh … Appellant Vs Heera Singh & another … Respondents Sri Nand Prashad, learned counsel for the appellant Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal arises out against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in First Appeal No. 61 of 2005 as well as against the judgment dated 27.07.2004 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Kashipur in Civil Suit No. 193 of 1997, Harvansh Singh Vs Hira Singh & Om Prakash. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant for the recovery of the possession of plot No. 182 situated at Mohalla Khalsa, Kasihpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The trial court after assessing all the evidence available on record dismissed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/appellant vide judgment dated 27.07.2004. 3. The appellant/plaintiff preferred the first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2008. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid both the judgments and decree, this second appeal has been preferred before this Court. 5. Heard Sri Nand Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 2 6. After having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the judgments and decree passed by the courts below, I do not find any infirmity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgments and decree passed by the courts below. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Santosh Hazari Vs Purushottam Tiwari reported in (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 179 has held that ‘a substantial question of law must be debatable, one which has not been settled earlier by statute or binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the outcome of the case.’ On the basis of the assessment of evidence on record, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff/appellant could not produce any evidence which may shows that he got the property in question from the possession of his mother and the defendant/respondent took forcible possession of the property in question and the appellant court affirmed this finding. Both the courts below have recorded their concurrent finding against the plaintiff/appellant. In the second appeal, the finding of fact concluded by the courts below, howsoever erroneous may be, cannot be interfered with. Moreover, I also find that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. 7. Thus the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in-limine. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 08.08.2008 ASWAL