Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) BY this second appeal a challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in civil regular appeal No. 21/2010 upholding the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2010, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), West Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant -plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') was dismissed. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and decrees dated 02.11.2010 and 10.03.2010, passed by the courts below respectively.
(2.) THE courts below have found concurrently that the land in dispute belongs to a Defence Department consequent to which no permanent injunction as sought could be granted to the plaintiff on the principle that there can be no injunction against the true owner. A second appeal can be entertained only on substantial question of law being made out. In my considered opinion, there is no perversity in the findings of fact on which the concurrent judgments and decree of the courts below are based. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [ : (1999) 3 SCC 722], has held that the concurrent findings of facts can not be disturbed by the High Court in the exercise of the powers under section 100 CPC. Consequently, the second appeal is without force and the same is dismissed.;