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.178/2009. (Anil Mahatma Vs. Rajasthan Mahila Vidhyalay) DATE OF JUDGMENT : July 10, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ______________________________________ Mr. Sandeep Shah for the appellant. In this second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C., the appellant-plaintiff is challenging judgment and decree dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.3, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No.1/2009, whereby, the learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Udaipur City (South), Udaipur in Civil Original Case No.372/1999 whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. According to facts, the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant with the pleading that he is sub- tenant of one Jagdish and he is in possession with the consent of the respondent landlord. Learned trial Court, 2 after considering the evidence of D.W.-1 Jagdish Sindhi and other material evidence on record, arrived at the finding upon issue No.1 that original tenant has specifically disputed the fact that the plaintiff-appellant is his sub- tenant. Therefore, after considering the entire facts of the case, the learned trial Court reached to the conclusion that no decree for permanent injunction can be passed against the respondent landlord. The said finding given by the trial Court in the judgment dated 20.11.2008 in Civil Original Case No.372/1999 was further upheld by the learned first appellate Court vide judgment dated 31.03.2009 in Civil Appeal No.1/2009. Having perused both the judgments impugned, I am of the opinion that no question of law emerges in this second appeal. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence coming on record that plaintiff has failed to prove that he is sub-lettee. Such finding does not require any interference. This second appeal is, therefore, accordingly dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.