- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the materials on record. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 23.10.2009, rendered by the XVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the First Additional Civil Judge in O.S. 26/1988. A dispute arose between the two neighbours regarding area and identification of Plot No. 21, situate in Block H Scheme Govind Nagar Colony, Kanpur. Rival suits were filed by the claiming their respective claims. Both the Courts below, that is, the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court had taken into account the allotment letters, sale deeds etc. and framed six issues covering the dispute. The relevant materials, which were placed by the rival parties, site plan, maps, sale deeds, Commissioner's report, additional reports of the Commissioner and other materials were also taken note of by the Courts below. On the basis of these materials, finding s of fact were recorded by the Courts below regarding identification of Plot No. 21, indicating therein that whether the disputed land was part of plot No. 21 or not. After appraisal of evidence put forth by the rival parties, the Courts below had found that the area shown as 'Sa-Da-La' marked with red ink was not party of the plaintiff-appellants' land (Plot No. 21). Oral and documentary evidence, which was brought on record, was also considered. The site plan maps, sale deeds and other relevant materials were also dealt with by the Courts below on the basis of which it was found that the plaintiff-appellants had failed to prove their title over the piece of land. The Courts below have also found that the plaintiff-appellants were also not in possession over the land in dispute. In absence of these two elements which was necessary for issuing injunctions, the Courts below have declined to interfere. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed. However, this Court has noted that the litigation in respect of factual dispute had come to an end, after about 21 years, by rendering a judgment and decree on 23.10.2009. The plaintiff-appellants have failed to make out any substantial question of law calling for interference by this Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The questions raised by the plaintiff-appellants are questions of fact regarding factual dispute, which have already been set at rest by the Courts below. This Court has also scrutinised this case in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as in Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh and another, 2008 AIR(SC) 1749 Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others, 1999 36 AllLR 218 and Kashibai W/o Lachiram and another v. Parwatibai W/o Lachiram and others, 1995 6 SCC 213 and found that no ingredients as required under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are attracted. Accordingly, the second appeal, having no substance, is dismissed.;