JUDGMENT 1. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a piece of land described as 'Gwara', situated in village Kankar Dopa, Tehsil Behror. 2. The plaintiff's case as set out in the original plaint was that he was the owner of the 'Gwara' & the defendants were threatening to dispossess him. He, therefore, prayed that a perpetual injunction may be issued against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. Later on the plaint was amended and a relief for possession was claimed on the ground that during the pendency of the suit the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiffs. 3. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned Munsiff, Behror found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title or, possession over the land in dispute & consequently he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs the learned Civil Judge, Alwar by his judgement dated 9.8.1966 upheld the judgement and decree by the trial court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the learned Civil Judge has generally concurred with the findings of the trial court and has not discussed and applied his mind to the evidence at all. He has further argued that the plaintiffs' possession prior to the date of suit has been established by the evidence produced by the plaintiffs and corroborated by the statement of defendant Malla (Ex. 1), and application Ex. 2 made in the Panchayat Court. 5. I have gone through the evidence and the documents Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 relied upon by the plaintiffs, & find that there are undoubtedly some material contradictions in the statements of the plaintiffs' witnesses. There is no documentary evidence in support of the plaintiffs' title to the land in dispute. Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 relied upon by the plaintiffs to prove the admissions of the defendants are also, in my opinion, not helpful to the plaintiffs as they do not contain any such statement that the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute. The learned Civil Judge has referred to the statements of the witnesses and both the documents Ex. 1 and Ex. The learned Civil Judge has referred to the statements of the witnesses and both the documents Ex. 1 and Ex. 2, and, therefore, he cannot be said to have ignored the evidence on the record and since he turned out a judgement of concurrence, it appears that he did not discuss the evidence in detail and observed that he agreed with the reasoning given by the trial court for not believing the plaintiffs' case. However, in order to satisfy myself, I have gone through the evidence and find that no just exception can be taken to the concurrence expressed by the first appellate court with the findings arrived at by the trial court. 6. The result is that I dod not see any force in this appeal, and hereby dismiss it, but leave the parties to bear their own costs. *******