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.86/2009. (Prakash Vs. Deena Lal & Others) DATE OF JUDGMENT : July 03, 2009. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. Suresh Shrimali for the appellant. BY THE COURT : The instant second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2007 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Abu Road (District Sirohi) in Civil Appeal No.9/97, whereby, learned appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1996 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Camp Court Mt. Abu in Civil Original Case No.145/1988, whereby, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff- appellant filed suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits on the ground that the property in question was purchased by him on 21.01.1987 while 2 possession was obtained by him on 04.01.1987. The defendants, however, encroached upon the property in question on 01.02.1987. Therefore, decree for declaration and possession along with mesne profits may be passed. Before the trial Court, defendant- respondents filed written-statement. Thereafter, the trial Court framed 12 issues. After elaborate discussion of the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit, against which, appeal was filed but, that too, was dismissed by the appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the concurrent finding of both the Courts below argued that the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court committed error while not appreciating the evidence in correct perspective. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is also contrary to the issues framed by it. As per learned counsel for the appellant, both the Courts below committed error while dismissing the suit filed by the appellant while accepting the plea of the respondent that he has purchased the property in question in the year 1975 and wrongly arrived at the finding that in the year 1987 no encroachment was made by the defendants. As per 3 learned counsel for the appellant, the trial Court as well as appellate Court miserably failed in appreciating the evidence in its true sense and law. According to him, the finding is absolutely erroneous, perverse and illegal and against settled principles of law. Further, it is argued that the learned lower appellate Court has also erred in law in reversing the finding of the trial Court with regard to issue No.8. I have perused the judgments passed by both the Courts below. Admittedly, the appellant is not disputing the sale- deed which is admittedly executed in the years 1960 and 1975. The defendant is in possession of the land which was subject-matter of the sale-deed executed in the years 1960 and 1975 and he is in possession of the said property since then. Admittedly, the appellant's case is that he has purchased the land in question in the year 1987 and he was given possession; but, he was dispossessed. In my opinion, both the Courts below have not committed any error while appreciating the evidence on record and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff which is based on the finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal which requires interference. Concurrent finding arrived 4 at by learned Courts below is based upon sound grounds and appreciation of facts and law in correct perspective, therefore, no interference is required. The appellant himself is not disputing the sale-deed which is executed in favour of the defendant way back in the years 1960 and 1975. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in this appeal. This appeal is, therefore, accordingly dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.