JUDGMENT This is a second appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction. Defendant is the respondent who has lost in both Courts below. Being confronted with the situation that the concurrent judgments of two Courts is based on a concurrent finding Shri Sapre rightly suggested that he can only pray for remand. However, in my view, remand is exception and not the rule. Even in second appeal it is necessary to examine if a case for remand is made out and then allow prayer in that regard. This suit was instituted in the year 1974 and almost 20 years are going soon to elapse. Whether the parties to be made to suffer another ordeal is the question which must weigh with me in deciding if remand is warranted or justified. The only contention which Shri Sapre has very forcefully and rightly pressed is that appellate judgment is perfunctory. His Contention is that the entire evidence is not discussed and finding reached in regard to validity of deposition of two witnesses PW 3 and DW 3. That is also correct. However, reference, the lower Appellate Court has made, to the title deeds of the two parties and that cannot be ignored. The land, it is admitted case of both sides belonged to Zamindar, Purushottam. His brother Ravishankar gave evidence as P.W. 3. Plaintiff's case is that from Purushottam Gourishankar purchased the land and from him plaintiff's father had purchased the land. Title-deed were proved and the Vendor Gourishankar gave evidence as PW 2. However, his evidence is buttressed too by P.W. 3 who was Gourishankar's Vendor. On the other side, there is evidence only of DW 3 Moyeenuddin the attesting witness of the documents Exs. D-2 and D-3 said to have been executed by Purushottam. The signature on those documents of Purushottam is denied by his brother Ravishankar, PW 2. Both Courts have reached the concurrent finding that the two sale-deeds on which defendant relied/were forged documents. Before me, in this Court, the main plea pressed by Shri Sapre is that there was proceeding at the instance of the State against the defendant alleging that he was encroacher and if that fact was taken into consideration that would have established that actual and factual possession all along remained with the defendant despite sale-deeds right or wrong" good or bad, true or false. He is correct. He is correct. But the position on facts is not to his benefit, on the finding of the trial Court. Therefore, even if that aspect the lower Appellate Court has not considered, I have done that. There is clear and categorical finding of the trial Court that in respect to the suit land if there was any encroachment proceedings at the instance of the State, it has not been established that the said proceeding was in respect of the suit land and that has not been challenged before me in this Court. For all the aforesaid reasons I do not think if a case for remand is made out. The material on which lower Appellate Court's finding are based is that provided by PW 3 and DW 3 and for the finding reached their evidence has been correctly appreciated. Material finding of the two Courts below in regard to possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs not to be disturbed by me because trial Court in categorical terms has made that finding and that is also categorically reiterated by the appellate Court. The appeal fails but there is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.