Honble MADAN, J. – This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29th July, 1995, passed in Civil Appeal no. 24/94 by Addl. Civil Judge, Alwar, whereby she had rejected the first appeal preferred by the appellants by affirming the findings of the trial court in Civil Suit No. 422/83 of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Alwar. (2). The facts in brief are that the plaintiffs-appellants belong to Scheduled Caste category and they filed a suit for perpetual injunction in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Alwar against the respondents therein they prayed that the defendants may be restrained from interfering in the physical enjoyment of the land in their possession and on which they had constructed residential houses. It was inter-alia pleaded in the suit that the appellants were in continuous physical possession of the land in question as owners (in absence of proof of title in the records of the Courts below) for the past several years. It has been further contended that on 25th October, 1983, officers of respondents No. 2 tried to dispossess the appellants illegally without due process of law. It was further contended that since the appellants belong to S.C. Category and they were harijans and since they did not have alternative residential houses except the disputed piece of land, they should not be dispossessed. (3). In the written submission on behalf of respondent No. 1, it was pleaded that the appellants were neither in possession of the land for the last 70 years as alleged and since the land vested with respondent No. 1 - UIT, the said authority was fully justified in removing the trespassers from the land. The appellant was given full opportunity of leading evidence and he tendered himself as a witness as PW 1 and also cited other independent witnesses in support of his case. Likewise the respondents also tendered witnesses on their behalf. The appellant was given full opportunity of leading evidence and he tendered himself as a witness as PW 1 and also cited other independent witnesses in support of his case. Likewise the respondents also tendered witnesses on their behalf. The trial court after giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties has recorded positive finding in its judgment dated 7th August, 1991 to the effect that in a suit for injunction the relief prayed for by the plaintiffs-appellants could not be granted since they had failed even to make out a prima-facie case for permanent injunction and merely on the basis of the fact that he was in possession of the land in question, no relief could be granted to him in as much as the positive evidence has come on the record on behalf of the respondents. Since the plaintiff had been dispossessed earlier from the suit land in the year 1983, the suit could not be decreed on the basis of the pleadings on the record. The trial court has also recorded a finding to the effect that if the plaintiff was the owner as alleged then no evidence regarding proof of title has come on the record and if he was the owner the proper course was to file the suit for declaration and not for the suit of injunction. (4). Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the plaintiffs-appellants preferred the first appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Alwar and the learned first appellate court has also affirmed the findings of the learned trial court and dismissed the first appeal. The learned first appellate Court has recorded a finding to the effect that the respondents authorities are at full liberty to take steps for dispo- ssession of the appellants from the land in question in accordance with the rules. It has been further held by the first appellate court that the decree passed by the trial court is based on due appreciation of evidence and it is not open to challenge. (5). It is against the concurrent findings of the two courts below that this second appeal has been preferred by the appellants. It has been further held by the first appellate court that the decree passed by the trial court is based on due appreciation of evidence and it is not open to challenge. (5). It is against the concurrent findings of the two courts below that this second appeal has been preferred by the appellants. It has been vehemently argued at the bar by Shir Ashok Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants that it was not necessarily for the plaintiffs-appellants to have pleaded any right on the strength of their title since admittedly they had been in continuous possession or the past several years and even in the absence of title they have a right to protect their possession. He has further contended at the bar that in a suit for injunction it was not necessary for the appellants to have sought the relief of declaration since the only question which was of prime importance was to protect the possession. He has further argued that the findings of the trial court on the question of possession of the appellants are absolutely perverse notwithstanding the fact that all the witnesses undisputedly deposed that the appellants were in peaceful possession of the land for the past 30-40 years. (6). In support of his contentions advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the matter of Sukhi vs. Chandra Sen & Anr. (1) and Nathulal & Ors. vs. Ram Swaroop & Ors. (2), judgment of the High Court of Kerala in the matter of Karthiyayani Amma vs. Govi- ndan (3), as well as on the decisions of Honble the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Krishna Ram Mahale vs. Shobha Venkat Rao (4). (7). In the matter of Sukhi vs. Chandra Sen (supra) the question which had arisen before this Court was as to whether a suit for injunction is maintainable in absence of the relief of declaration. It was held by this court that the previous po- ssession of a person in respect of a property has got to be protected except against the true owner unless the remedy of true owner is barred by limitation. It was held by this court that the previous po- ssession of a person in respect of a property has got to be protected except against the true owner unless the remedy of true owner is barred by limitation. In my considered opinion the ratio of this decision is not attracted to the facts of this case since nothing prevented the appellants to assert their title over the land in question and they were the true owners then the proper remedy which they should have availed was to have filed a declaratory suit by asserting their title at the first instance and in absence of title the only recourse which the appellants thought was to protect their possession which admittedly was as that of trespassers over the land in question. (8). In Nathulal & Ors. vs. Ram Swaroop (supra), the question which had ari- sen before this court was regarding easementry right which had accrued to a party on the basis of grant created in his favour. It was held by the court in that context that if a party had been using a particular land for a particular purpose from times immemorial it can be said that he has earned a prescriptive right on the basis of grant which is not the case here and, therefore, the ratio of this decision is not attracted to the facts of this case. (9). In the matter of Karthiyayani Amma vs. Govindan (supra), it was held by the court that a person in possession of immovable property can sustain a suit for injunction against the rightful owner preventing him from disturbing his possession and that a person in possession can only be evicted by due process of law. (10). In the matter of Krishan Ram Mahale vs. Shobha Venkat Rao (supra), the question which had arisen before the Apex Court for consideration was as to whether a person who is in settled possession of the property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. In my humble opinion the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions is distinguishable and not applicable to the present case for the reason that in this case both the UIT as well as the Municipal Council, Alwar have specifically pleaded before the courts below that the land belongs to the said authorities and it is a Government land over which the petitioner has been in unlawful possession and merely because he has been in possession does not prevent the authorities from getting the appellants dispossessed from the said land. (11). In my considered opinion, the concurrent findings of the courts below are not assailable in the second appeal since it is a settled law that the findings of fact are not open to challenge in the second appeal unless there is some substantial question of law for consideration of the court. In my opinion no substantial question of law is made out and there is no error, infirmity or illegality in the judgments of both the courts below. The Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed. It will, however, be open to the respondents to take necessary steps for dispossession of the appellants from the land in question in accordance with law.