JUDGMENT N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. This is second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1981 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Gonda dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1980 passed by the VIIIth Additional Munsif, Gonda decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for injunction.
2. I have heard Shri R.K. Srivastava counsel for the appellant. Nobody appeared to argue on behalf of the respondents.
3. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent Shiv Prasad Singh and Ram Raj Singh filed Suit No. 150 of 1978 against the defendants-appellants with the allegation that they are the residents of village Bhul Bhulaiya, Tehsil Gonda and purchased the land in suit shown by letters Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha in the Commissioner's Map from Asharfi Lal and Gomti by means of registered sale deed dated 1.2.1978 for a consideration of Rs. 500 and are in possession thereof alongwith a 'kathal' tree situated therein. It was also alleged that this land is being used by the plaintiffs-respondents for tying cattle and their Marha, Charm and Nand etc. are also situated therein. The defendants contested the suit and claimed themselves to be the owners of the land in suit as they are recorded in a portion of plot No. 1078 total area 0.11 biswan and are bhumidhars thereof. The learned Munsif framed eight issues out of which Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 relate to the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs-respondents over the disputed land. The learned Munsif held that the plaintiffs are found the owners in possession over the disputed land on the basis of a sale deed dated 1.2.1978 executed by Kalwar alias Asharfi Lal and Gomti Prasad alias Gurudeen. The learned Munsif has also referred the admission of Raghu Raj Singh one of the witnesses of the defendants who admitted that the disputed land is in possession of the plaintiffs-respondents since after the execution of the sale deed in their favour. So far as 0.11 biswan land claimed by the defendants-appellants is concerned, the learned Munsif has held that the entire village comes under Plot No. 1078 and the defendants have not been able to locate that the disputed land is within the area of 0.11 biswan on which the names of the defendants is recorded. With these findings, the learned Munsif decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. The defendants preferred an appeal which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.7.1981 passed by Additional District Judge, Gonda confirming the finding of facts recorded by the learned Munsif. Now in the second appeal, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has not argued on any substantial question of law. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants is that the appellate court has committed error in not discussing the evidence at the time of confirming the finding of the lower court. I am of the view that this is not a substantial question of law. The suit of the plaintiff is based on the oral evidence as well as the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs. According to the finding of the learned Munsif, it is established that land in suit is the same land which the plaintiffs have purchased through the sale deed referred by them while the defendants have not been able to establish that this disputed land is situated within 0.11 biswan of plot No. 1078 on which their names are recorded. The learned 1st appellate court has referred the statement of D.W. 2 Raghuraj Singh in which he has admitted that the plaintiffs-respondents are in possession over the land in suit. The learned appellate court has also referred the statement of all the witnesses that house of Bhagwan was situated on the northern side of the plaintiffs-respondents.
4. After scrutinising the evidence on the record of the trial court, the appellate court has recorded a finding that from the admission of the witnesses as well as the contents of the sale deed, it is clear that the boundaries of the land in suit tally with those mentioned in the sale deed. The learned appellate court has also recorded the finding that the evidence adduced by the defendants is of no help to establish their title. I am of the view that the learned appellate court has not committed any illegality in confirming the finding of fact recorded by the learned Munsif. It was not required on the part of the appellate court to discuss and repeat same evidence again while he has referred the material evidence in support of the finding recorded by the appellate court. In the memo of appeal, the defendants-appellants have stated certain other questions of law for being decided in this second appeal but those questions of law are not the substantial questions of law to be decided in this appeal. All those contentions relate to the evidence. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has not placed any argument on those questions. I find that both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of facts with regard to the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs-respondents over the land suit. In second appeal, the factual finding recorded by the courts below cannot be Interfered with. I do not find any perversity in the finding which is based on the evidence on record.
5. In view of the above, this second appeal is dismissed.