JUDGMENT : J. N. Bhatt, J. The appellants are original defendants No. 1 and 2 and respondents No. 1 to 3 are original plaintiffs and respondents No.4 to 6 are original defendants No. 3 to 5. They are hereinafter referred to, for the brevity and convenience sake, as plaintiffs and defendants. 2. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 140 of 1971 for declaration and removal of encroachment and also for permanent injunction against the defendants, in respect of a disputed open land, which is situated in between the houses of the parties. The houses of the parties are situated in Raijiwada Street in Bhadam village in Broach district. The plaintiffs, inter alia, contended that the suit open land is a private street and the owners of the houses on either side of the street land are the owners of the said land. It was further contended that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 4 are the co-owners of the private street land and it has to be kept available and open for the joint use by all the parties. The defendants made encroachment on the said land by raising "Otla". They also raised Katcha Adala towards the north of the house over 10' north-south and 27' east- west of the suit street. It was further alleged that defendant no. 2 had also raised a Katcha Adala in the front of the house 10' north-south and 14' east-west of the land in dispute. Thus, upon the allegation that joint ownership open vacant land was encroached upon, ousting the plaintiffs from the enjoyment thereof, the aforsaid suit was filed. 3. The defendants appeared and resisted the suit of the plaintiffs. Defendants No. 1 to 3 filed a composite written statement and contended that, it was not a private street, but it was a public street and it cannot be said to be a street of the parties. According to their version, there was no encroachment and there was no damage caused to the public. Defendant No. 4 had filed a separate written statement. According to his contention also, he was the Sarpanch of the Panchayat and the disputed street is a public street. Defendant No. 5, Local Panchayat, also contended that the street in question is a public street and it is vested in the Panchayat. Defendant No. 4 had filed a separate written statement. According to his contention also, he was the Sarpanch of the Panchayat and the disputed street is a public street. Defendant No. 5, Local Panchayat, also contended that the street in question is a public street and it is vested in the Panchayat. Thus, it was contended by the Panchayat that, it is the ownership of the panchayat. 4. Upon the facts and circumstances and the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, at Ex. 46. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court, partly, allowed suit. The suit of the plaintiff for removal of encroachment in front of the house of defendants No. 1 and 2, as shown by the plaintiff in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the plaint came to be dismissed. However, the suit of the plaintiffs came to be allowed in respect of the encroachment, as shown in paragraph 9 of the plaint. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on 11.4.1974. Regular Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1974, was filed by the present appellants along with other two defendants, in the District Court, at Broach. The original plaintiffs have also filed cross-objections. That appeal also came to be dismissed with some modifications in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this Second Appeal by original defendants no. 1 and 2. 6. During the course of the hearing of this appeal, learned advocate, Mr. N.V. Anjaria, while appearing for advocate, Mr.S.N. Shelat, has vehemently contended that there was ample evidence to show that the street land situated between the two rows of houses of plaintiffs and defendants, like that the suit street land, is a public street and is vested in the Local Gram Panchayat. According to his contention, the inference of law is required to be drawn from several facts and documentary evidence as to whether it is a public street or a private street. In this connection, he has placed reliance on documentary evidence produced, at Ex. 108 to 113, and also placed reliance on the resolution of the Government, produced at Ex. 117. 7. It may be noted that the scope of the Second Appeal is very much circumscribed. In this connection, he has placed reliance on documentary evidence produced, at Ex. 108 to 113, and also placed reliance on the resolution of the Government, produced at Ex. 117. 7. It may be noted that the scope of the Second Appeal is very much circumscribed. From the plain perusal of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), it becomes very clear that the Court must be satisfied that there is a substantial question of law. It is not only a question of law, but it should be a substantial question of law requiring consideration that has to be shown. Bearing in mind the limited jurisdictional sweep of this Court, under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and having examined the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the clear opinion that there is no any question of law, as such, involved in the present case, much less substantial. 8. Both the Courts have, concurrently, held on facts that the suit street is a private street and not a public street land vested in the Panchayat. This concurrent finding of fact has remained unassailable. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and upon a true construction of Section 2(29) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, a disputed street (open land) could be said to be a public street? The answer would be in the negative. This is rightly answered by both the Courts, concurrently, on appreciation of the evidence and facts. 9. The reliance on the documentary evidence produced, at Ex. 108 to 113, was examined and analysed by both the Courts. They are the resolutions of the Local Gram Panchayat, original defendant No.5. Upon the examination of the said resolutions, produced at Ex. 108 to 113, the Courts below have consistently and concurrently found that they do not go to show that the suit land is, in any way, a public street, as contemplated by law. Again the reliance is placed by Mr. Anjaria, on Ex. 117, which is again a resolution of the Government. The resolution does not support the contention of the present appellants original defendants. The lands enumerated in the said resolution have been vested in the Local panchayat, but applying the criteria and yardstick mentioned in the resolution, Ex. 117, the disputed street cannot be characterised as public street. 10. 117, which is again a resolution of the Government. The resolution does not support the contention of the present appellants original defendants. The lands enumerated in the said resolution have been vested in the Local panchayat, but applying the criteria and yardstick mentioned in the resolution, Ex. 117, the disputed street cannot be characterised as public street. 10. The expression "street" is defined in Section 2(29) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act,1961, and it means, any road, square, court, alley or passage accessible whether permanently or temporarily to the public, whether a thoroughfare or not. Whereas the expression "public Street" is defined in Section 2(24AA) of the Act. It reads as under :- "2(22AA) "public street" means any street- (a) over which the public have a right of way, or (b) heretofore levelled, paved, metalled, channelled, served or repaired out of a panchayat fund or other public fund, or (c) which under the provision of this Act is declared by a panchayat to be or which under the provisions of this Act becomes a public street." 11. In order to constitute the character of a public street, it must be shown that the public have a right of way as of right. Mr. Anjaria is right that simply because there is a blind alley on the west of the street land, it cannot be said that it is not a public street. However, even upon the examination of the evidence on record, both the Courts have correctly reached to the conclusion that the suit land is not a public street as defined in law. Not only that, the aforesaid documentary evidence relied on by the learned advocate, Mr. Anjaria, is not helpful to the defendants, but the documentary evidence produced, at Ex. 67, a field book, which was prepared by the Revenue Department, as early as in 1926, unambiguously and categorically mentions that the disputed street land is a private street and not a public street. This documentary evidence of the Government record prepared in 1926 is rightly relied on by both the Courts and nothing is successfully shown, which would affect the credibility of the said documentary evidence. 12. This documentary evidence of the Government record prepared in 1926 is rightly relied on by both the Courts and nothing is successfully shown, which would affect the credibility of the said documentary evidence. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent conclusions on facts arrived at by both the Courts are justified and present appeal is without any merits and, therefore, it is required to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the cross-objection are also dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.