JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal under section 100 CPC is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 16.9.1994 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jaipur, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the defendant-appellant and upheld the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1982 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. 2. The suit was filed by respondent-Madan Lal for permanent injunction against the appellant with a prayer that door open on his land should be closed and the girders fixed on his land should be removed. The suit was contested by the defendant. The trial Court framed 13 issues. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial Court held that the disputed land belonged to the plaintiff. The suit was therefore, decreed. The first appellate Court upheld the decree. 3. The contention of Mr. Maloo is that both the Courts below have misread the evidence and they have not considered the oral evidence led by the defendant. He submits that the plaintiff's case is demolished by his own document Ex. I in which lane was shown after his land, and therefore, the suit could not be decreed. 4. Mr. Agrawal, on the other hand, supporting the judgments of the Courts below, contends that the findings have been recorded on the evidence produced by the parties and there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 5. The appellant has framed 13 questions of law in the memorandum of appeal. I have gone through these questions. The controversy raised in almost all these questions is that the Courts below have not properly read the evidence or have omitted to read the evidence of the defendant and have wrongly decided the issues. In my opinion, none of these questions can be called a question of law, much less substantial question of law. 6. The Apex Court has observed time and again that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact which was based upon appreciation of evidence even if the finding was grossly erroneous. 6. The Apex Court has observed time and again that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact which was based upon appreciation of evidence even if the finding was grossly erroneous. It is profitable to read the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal : "Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Sub-section 4 of Section 100 further provides that when the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. But it may he pointed out that the High Court formulated no question of" law on basis of which it proposed to interfere with the findings of facts. It has been the consistent view of this Court that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact based upon an appreciation of the relevant evidence. There is plethora of case law in support of this view. To quote a few references may he made to the decision in Ramchandra v. Ramalingam, AIR 1963 SC 302 wherein this Court took the view that even if the appreciation of evidence made by the lower appellate Court is patently erroneous and the finding of fact recorded in consequence is grossly erroneous, that cannot be said to introduce a substantial error or defect in the procedure and the High Court cannot interfere with the conclusions of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court. This view has been reiterated by this Court in Bhagwan Das v. Jiley Kaur, AIR 1991 SC 266 . This being the position, the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence and substituting its own conclusions for the well reasoned findings recorded by the Courts of fact." 7. In the case of Navneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty, (1996) 6 SCC 166 , the Apex Court's following observations deserve to be reproduced : "This Court. This being the position, the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence and substituting its own conclusions for the well reasoned findings recorded by the Courts of fact." 7. In the case of Navneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty, (1996) 6 SCC 166 , the Apex Court's following observations deserve to be reproduced : "This Court. time without number, pointed out that interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below by the High Court under section 100-C IPC must be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons. In any case, the High Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence just to replace the findings of the lower Courts." In that case it has been further observed that even assuming that another view is possible on the reapreciation of the evidence, the High Court cannot be justified in reversing the view taken by the first appellate Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it is not permissible for this Court to reverse the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. It is certainly not the case where it can be said that the findings are perverse and on the basis of the evidence on record, the view taken by the two Courts could not he taken. 9. Much emphasis was laid by Mr. Maloo that even in the map annexed to the `Patta' issued to the plaintiff, lane has been shown on the Northern side of the plaintiff's land, which shows that the disputed land does not belong to the plaintiff. In view of the clear evidence on record that the defendant raised 'pucca' construction after the purchase of the land by the plaintiff, the two Courts below were perfectly justified in holding that (he defendant encroached upon that public land while raising construction. This finding cannot be said to be erroneous in view of the admissions made by the defendant in the written statement as to the measurement of the land of the plaintiff and the facts which have appeared in the evidence. 10. The case of Jagdish v. Nathu Singh, 1992 SC 1604 relied on by Mr. Maloo, does not help the appellant in this case. 10. The case of Jagdish v. Nathu Singh, 1992 SC 1604 relied on by Mr. Maloo, does not help the appellant in this case. In that case, the Courts below had not considered the effect of the two notices given to the appellant before the suit was filed in which it was averred that the respondent was ready and willing to perform the contract. The High Court in second appeal had observed that the findings of the Courts of facts were vitiated by non-consideration of the relevant evidence and as such the High Court's view was upheld. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the Courts of facts have omitted to consider the documentary evidence of the defendant. It is also not correct to say that the defendant's oral evidence was not considered. There is reference of the evidence in the judgment of the trial Court. It is not necessary for the appellate Court to discuss the evidence in detail when it concurs with the findings of the trial Court. 11. So also the case of Banarsi Das v. Brig. Maharaja Sukhjit Singh. 1998 SC 179 does not help the appellant. The facts of that case were very different. 12. In the case of M/s. Variety Emporium v. VRM Mohd. Ibrahim Naina, 1985 SC 207 , it has been observed that the Supreme Court can always interfere where it is shown that the concurrent decisions of the Courts are manifestly unjust. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the decisions of the two Courts are manifestly unjust. The decisions are based on a proper appreciation of evidence. All the arguments advanced by the defendant have been discussed in the judgment. 13. The last contention of Mr. Maloo is that the Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit as relief of the declaration was not prayed for. In the suit it was pleaded that the defendant had encroached upon the plaintiff's land. In such a matter, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to have prayed for a declaration. 14. Consequently, I find that no substantial questions of law arise in this case and the appeal does not deserve to be admitted. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed.