Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) While decreeing the suit filed by deity Thakuji Shri Radha Ballabhji Birajman Gram Mandawar, the Sub Divisional Officer Hindaun City held that the deity being the perpetual minor was the Khatedar tenant of the land in question and the land cultivated by Pujari shall be deemed to be cultivated by deity. The defendant preferred appeal against the said decree but the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota dismissed the Appeal. The Board of Revenue Ajmer however allowed the second appeal preferred by the defendant. The deity assailed the finding of Board of Revenue by filing writ petition but learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. We have heard rival submissions.
(2.) A look at the Judgment of Board of Revenue reveals that while deciding second appeal it did interfere with concurrent finding of fact arrived at by SDO and RAA. In State of HP v/s. Akshara Nand ( : AIR 2000 SC 1828) the Apex Court held that concurrent finding of fact arrived at by lower appellate Court and trial court could not be interfered with in second appeal.
(3.) It is well settled that a right of appeal is not a natural or inherent right attaching to litigation and does no exist and cannot be assumed unless expressly given by statute or by rules having the force of statute. The scope of first appeal differs from that of a second appeal in that the former is not limited to any particular grounds of appeal such as those provided in second appeal. The provisions restricting the grounds that may be taken in second appeal based on public policy expressed in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium. It concerns the State that there be an end to litigation. Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure restricts the scope of second appeal only to the cases where substantial question of law involved, so that litigation may not drag on for a longer time.;