1 S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO. 118/2010 Mohan Lal VS. The Municipal Council, Bikaner. Date of Order :: 21.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. M.S. Purohit, for the appellant/s. ... The appellant-plaintiff preferred a suit seeking a decree in the nature of permanent and mandatory injunction with assertion that he is having possession on a strip of land close to his house since 1939, and as such, same deserves to be allotted to him and further that no interference should be made by the defendant on possession of the plaintiff with the land aforesaid. An application for allotment of strip of land too was submitted on 28.2.1974. Learned trial court after considering the entire evidence available on record reached at the conclusion that the land in dispute is a government land wherefrom high tension electricity line is going and the plaintiff raised certain construction thereon unauthorizedly. Learned trial court also reached at the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the land as alleged since 1939. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court vide the judgment impugned dated 13.8.2008. While assailing validity of the judgments and decrees passed by 2 the courts below the argument advanced is that the possession of the plaintiff over the land in question makes him entitled to retain the land and as such by flux of time he has become owner of the strip of land. As per the counsel for the petitioner the courts below failed to appreciate this issue while rejecting the suit. On examination of orders passed by the courts below I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. At the first instance it is relevant to note that the trial court in quite unambiguous terms gave a definite finding of fact that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the land since 1939 and mere submission of an application for allotment of strip of land somewhere in the year 1974 does not create any presumption relating to possession over the land as urged. Beside that it was also held that in entire plaint no relief regarding title on basis of adverse possession was claimed by the plaintiff. The appellate court thoroughly considered the findings given by the trial court on basis of the available evidence and affirmed the findings so given. As a matter of fact, the appellant in the instant appeal wants to challenge the pure findings of fact without having any substantial question of law. As such, I am not at all inclined to disturb the findings so give. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '