Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 5.6.2004 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Sikar in Civil Regular Appeal No. 1/2004 whereby the learned appellate court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2003 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Sikar in Civil Suit No. 48/95 whereby suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed by the court below. The short facts of the case are that plaintiff respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction on the ground that he is in possession over the disputed property from last 60 years. The contention of the appellant was that earlier the property was entered in the name of Panch Mahajanan which was a wrong entry, hence a reference has been made before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer which was allowed and mutation has been opened in favour of the State Government dated 6.9.1997 and respondent is not entitled to raise any construction over the land and the court below has rightly dismissed the suit against which a regular first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff and first appellate court has decreed the suit for injunction in favour of plaintiff respondent, hence this second appeal.
(2.) THE contention of the appellant is that respondent has failed to establish the fact that he was in possession over the property from last 60 years. The first appellate court without any material evidence on record has reversed the finding of the court below. Documents; ration card (Ex. 2), document of Municipal Council (Ex. 3) and electricity bill (Ex. 4) have been relied upon which could not establish the fact that respondent plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the property from last 60 years, hence the findings of the appellate court are per verse and the appeal be admitted. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of the plaintiff respondent. It is admitted case of the appellant that respondent plaintiff is in possession of the property and possession of the property was never handed over to appellants. The appellate Court has rightly considered the evidence of the respondent which clearly establish the fact that he is in possession of the property from last 60 years and to support his contention, documents have been submitted. Apart from it, the witness of the appellants, DW/1 Prakash Chand has stated that respondent is in possession of the property and it had never been handed over to Nagar Parishad. DW/2 Jawaharsingh, Patwari has also stated that plaintiff respondent is in possession from last more than 30 years and Tehsildar has also stated that earlier it was in the name of Panch Mahajanan and thereafter by reference it has been entered in the name of the State Government but the possession of the property is with the plaintiff respondent and he has also constructed a house over it, hence looking to the evidence available on record, the first appellate court has rightly held that plaintiff respondent was in possession of the property and as it was only a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction, rightly has been decreed. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decree under appeal. Findings of the first appellate court cannot be said to be perverse as the appellate court has appreciated the material evidence on record and rightly came to the conclusion that respondent plaintiff is in possession of the property. It is true that it is a case of reversal of finding by the appellate court but only on this ground, this appeal cannot be entertained. No substantial question of law has been raised by the appellant. No perversity in the finding of the appellate court could be pointed out. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be rejected. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ;