- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Merta dated August 30, 1988 by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant and confirmed the judgment of the learned Addl. Munsif, Merta dated September 10, 1979, decreeing the suit for recovery of possession and injunction.
(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned lower Courts have not properly appreciated the evibence on record, they have mis-read the pattas produced by both the parties in respect of the disputed land, they have incorrectly held that suit 'nohara, is owned by the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant was permitted in Samvat 2029 by her to use it for some time. He further contended that it is not proved that the patta was issued to the plaintiff according to the mandatory provisions of the rules of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Both the learned lower Courts have concurrently held that suit 'nohara, was owned and possessed by Mst. Sheri, she was the grand-mother of the plaintiff Jeevani and Sheri died leaving behind Jeevani as her sole heir and legal representative. It is also proved from the order Ex. l of the S. D. M. , Merta that the escheat proceedings were taken against the properties left by Mst. Sheri and on the objection of the plaintiff Jeevani they were dropped holding that the plaintiff Jeevani was the sole heir and legal representative of the deceased Sheri. Both the lower courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in coming to the conclusion that the suit nohara, devolved upon the plaintiff after the death of her grand-mother Sheri. Thereafter, she came in possession of the field and nohara of late Mst. Sheri. After proper assessment of the evidence on record, they further held that plaintiff permitted the defendant in Samvat 2029 to use the said 'nohara'. It has been held in Ram Murthi V/s Bhola Nath, (1) that even an erroneous finding of fact is binding on the High Court in Second appeal. AIR 1988 SC 396 (2) AIR 1959 SC 57 (3) may also be mentioned here. It has also been held in AIR 1982 S. C. 679 (4) that finding of fact is not open to challenge in second appeal. It has been held in AIR 1963 S. C 1633 (5,) that sufficiency or adequacy of evidence to support a finding of fact is not a ground for interference in second appeal. Consequently, the second appeal is summarily dismissed. .;