1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.38/2007. (Smt. Badam Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) DATE OF JUDGMENT : August 12, 2009. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari for the appellants. BY THE COURT : In this second appeal, filed under Section 100, C.P.C., the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2004 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No.40/2001, whereby, the learned first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) (West), Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No.35/76 (332/1975). The appellants are challenging the concurrent finding of both the Courts below in the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction against respondents No.1 to 5. After hearing 2 learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the entire record of the case and both the judgments rendered by the Courts below, I am of the opinion that concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below upon the issues framed by the trial Court does not require any interference because the appellant-plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their possession, so also, learned trial Court while deciding issue No.2 and 6 held that no case is made out to establish that property in question was belonging to one Bachhraj. So also, after appreciating the entire evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit and held that appellant-plaintiffs have not proved their case with regard to possession in their favour. In this view of the matter, no question of law emerges for consideration because the finding of the learned trial Court and lower appellate Court is finding of fact for which re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Hence, this second appeal is hereby dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.. Ojha, a.