Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Appellant.
(2.) PLAINTIFF -Appellant's suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed by both the courts below. Hence, the Plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. Issue No. 1 was the main issue in the present case, i.e., whether Shyam Lal was Pujari of Plaintiff -Mandir Shri Sitaram Ji Maharaj and Issue No. 2 was whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants. Trial court as well as first appellate court both, after considering evidence available on record in detail, have decided both the issues against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants. Both the issues involved in the present case are relating to questions of facts and there is concurrent finding of facts by both the courts below. Learned Counsel for the Appellant is unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments, so as to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the courts below.
(3.) SECOND appeal can be entertained only on substantial question of law, which, in my view, is not involved in the present second appeal.;