1 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.190/2008. (Nannu & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another) July 10, 2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ______________________________________ Mr. S.P. Sharma for appellants. In this second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C., the appellants are challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2006 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Parbatsar in Civil Appeal No.13/2001, whereby, the lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Makrana and dismissed the appeal. According to facts of the case, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and cancellation of order was filed by the present appellants. Before the trial Court, the appellants claimed possession on the basis of sale-deed which is said to be executed by one Abdul Ghani on 17.03.1975 in favour of the appellants. However, three stands were taken with regard to their claim upon the property in question. Firstly, in the revenue records there was entry in the name of seller Abdul Ghani; secondly, there was an order for regularization of the land in favour of Abdul Ghani; and, thirdly, on the basis of the 2 sale-deed. Admittedly, in the sale-deed, executed on 17.03.1975, it is nowhere stated by the seller Abdul Gani that his name is entered in the revenue record, so also, there is any order in his favour with regard to regularization of the land. The sale-deed was executed on the basis of old possession and, that too, on 17.03.1975, therefore, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit and held that the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled for declaration of possession and title. The learned trial Court while deciding issue No.1 discussed the entire evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued that the learned trial Court ought to have drawn adverse inference upon the fact that in the revenue record there was entry in favour of the seller Abdul Gani. In this connection, he has brought to the notice of this Court judgment reported in 2008 CDR (SC) 58. In my opinion, the facts of this appeal are altogether different. Both the Courts below gave concurrent finding upon the fact that appellant is not entitled for decree of declaration for title and possession. In my view, the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court rightly considered the evidence on record while giving the finding with regard to issue No.1 and held that there was no title 3 and possession in favour of the appellants. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in this second appeal because no substantial question of law emerges for consideration in this appeal. Hence, this second appeal is hereby dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.