1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ::: JUDGMENT Govind Singh and another. vs. Nathu Lal. S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.249/2005 UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 9.5.2005 PASSED BY SHRI RAM CHANDRA SINGH JHALA, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BALI, DISTRICT PALI IN CIVIL APPEAL DECREE NO.35/1999. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 12.1.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. BR Mehta, for the appellants. - - - - - BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants. The appellants are aggrieved against the concurrent finding of fact with respect to the land in 2 dispute for which the trial court granted mandatory injunction after holding that the land in question is land of way. The trial court's finding recorded in judgment and decree dated 17.9.1999 was confirmed by the first appellate court in its judgment and decree dated 9.5.2005. Hence, this second appeal by the appellants/defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants placed on record the copy of patta of his property and in that patta, there is no mention that the land in question is land of way. The appellants' application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was dismissed by the first appellate court against which the appellant preferred writ petition wherein according to appellant, it has been ordered that the appellant may raise the ground in further appeal. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 1986 and the defendants did not produce the patta of his property, therefore, the plaintiff produced copy of the patta of the defendants' house obtained from Gram Panchayat where the patta was produced by the predecessor of the defendant. The plaintiff also placed on record the copies of the order-sheets of the Gram Panchayat 3 dealing with the objection. In view of the above reason, two courts below concurrently on the basis of oral and documentary evidence held that the land in dispute is land of way. This finding of fact cannot be interfered while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in view of the fact that the finding is based on evidence and the courts below has not committed any error of law in rejecting the appellant's application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. In view of the above, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal, having no merit, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya