Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present second appeal under section 100 of CPC has been filed by the appellant -plaintiff Satya Dev against the judgment and decree dated 25th August, 2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Fast Track No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "appellate court") in the Civil Regular Appeal No. 9/2010 (115/2006), and also the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2006 passed by the Munsif Magistrate (East), Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "trial court") in Civil Suit No. 329/1975. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant -plaintiff had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction alleging interalia that he was in possession of the suit property and the defendant -Jaipur Development Authority (for short "JDA") was causing obstruction in the way of the plaintiff in going to the temple adjacent to his property. According to the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since last more than 35 years and had right to approach the temple, which was situated near the suit property. Since the defendant's authority was trying to auction the suit property, the plaintiff filed the suit. The said suit was resisted by the respondent -defendant by filing the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that the plaintiff had no ownership right or other legal right over the suit property. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the suit of the appellant -plaintiff, however, directed that the appellant plaintiff shall not be dispossessed from the disputed property without following the due process of law by the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2006. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the appeal being No. 9/2010, which also came to be dismissed by the appellate court vide the judgment dated 25th August, 2010.
(2.) LEARNED Sr. Counsel Mr. M.M. Ranjan for the appellant has vehemently submitted that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record and held that the appellant was the encroacher over the suit property. He also submitted that the respondent -defendant had led no evidence before the trial court rebutting the evidence of the appellant -plaintiff and that though both the courts below had believed the existence of the temple, did not grant the injunction against the respondent -defendant and hence, the impugned judgments and decrees deserve to be set aside. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Sr. counsel Mr. Ranjan for the appellant and to the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, it appears that both the courts have considered in detailed the evidence led by the appellant -plaintiff, and held that the appellant was not the owner of the disputed premises, and that he had no legal right for being in possession of the disputed premises. The courts below have recorded the findings that the appellant -plaintiff was the encroacher over the disputed premises and therefore no relief as prayed for could be granted. There being concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below and the learned counsel for the appellant having failed to point out any illegality much less perversity in the said findings, this court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings. Even otherwise, there being no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above, the second appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;