JUDGMENT 1. - This is a plaintiff-appellant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28-7-1982 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sojat by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff appellant against the judgment and decree dated 15-2-1978 of the learned Munsiff. Sojat by which suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. 2. It arises in the following circumstances:- The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Munsiff, Sojat on 22-4-1975 with the allegations that there is a Thala situated in Tehsil Kharchi (Marwar Junction) District Pali, the details of which are mentioned in para 1 of the plaint. The said Thala was originally belonged to one Kalu, who had migrated to Pakistan and his property was declared evacuee property by the Custodian Department and this property was put for auction and the same was purchased by the plaintiff-appellant in auction and sale certificate Ex. 1 dated 24-2-1965 was issued by the Custodian Department in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and he was also put in possession of the disputed property on 21-4-1975. When the plaintiff-appellant found that the defendants-respondents have put stones etc. in the Thala and started to lay foundation for making construction for which they have no right and they have forcibly and illegally entered the Thala, he filed the present suit for permanent injunction with the prayer that the defendants-respondents be restrained from making any construction in the said Thala and further be restrained from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff-appellant. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant was contested by the respondent-defendant No. 1 by filing written statement on 18-8-1975 in the lower Court alleging that the disputed property was not alone the property of one Kalu, but it was the patta sudh property of Kalu and defendant No. 1 respondent Jahoor Ahmed. There is no dispute on the point that Kalu had gone to Pakistan and his property was declared evacuee property and was put for auction also and it was purchased by the plaintiff-appellant in auction, but respondent-defendant No. 1 submitted objections before the Custodian Department and the State Competent Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide his order dated 17-8-1961 (Ex.A/2) stayed further proceedings in respect of the auction which took place on 25-7-1961. Thereafter, the objections of the respondent-defendant No. 1 were decided by the State Competent Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide his judgment dated 14-9-1962 (Ex.A/1) and the claim of the respondent-defendant No. 1 was accepted and it was further ordered that the share of Kalu, who had migrated to Pakistan, may be offered to the defendant No. 1-respondent after enquiring valuation from the Valuation Officer and that portion may also be sold to the defendant No. 1-respondent. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1-respondent deposited Rs. 1,050/- towards the share of Kalu and thus, he became the owner of whole of the disputed property and sale certificate dated 22-8-1969 (Ex.A/3) was issued in favour of respondent-defendant No. 1. Thus, he has become owner of the property in dispute and the plaintiff-appellant is not in possession of the disputed property and the sale certificate which was issued in favour of the plaintiff-appellant on 24-2-1965 (Ex. 1) stands cancelled in view of the sale certificate Ex.A/3 dated 22-8-1969 issued in favour of the respondent-defendant No. 1. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant be dismissed.On the pleadings of the parties, the learned lower first Court framed the following issues on 14-8-1976 : 1& D;k dLVksfM;u foHkkx us fooknxzLrFkkyk dh eqnbZ ds gd esa cspku fd;k & ( ih ) 2& D;k rudhauA cgd oknh r; gksus ds lwjr esa oknh ds gd esa fd;k x;k cspku dLVksfM;u foHkkx us ealq[k dj izfroknh dks fooknxzLr Fkkys csp fn;k\ ( Mh ) 3& D;k dLVksfM;u foHkkx dks fooknxzLr Fkkyk oknh dks cspus dk vf/kdkj ugha Fkk vkSj D;k ;g mtj ;g vnkyr lek;r dj ldrh gS ( Mh ) 4& D;k ;g nkok dLVksfM;u foHkkx dks Qjhd cuk;s fcuk ugha py ldrk\ ( Mh ) 5& D;k eqnbZ dk is'k dajnk lsy lVhZfQdsV dkfcy jftLV~h gksus ls ukxkfcy mn[kk; 'kgknr gS\ ( Mh ) 6& nknjlh D;k gksuh . In the lower Court, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant and four witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent-defendant No. 1 and some documents were got exhibited by the parties.The learned first lower Court i.e. Munsiff, Sojat vide his judgment and decree dated 15-2-1978 decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant holding that the sale certificate Ex.1 dated 24-2-1965 was issued by the Custodian Department in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.While deciding issue No. 2, the learned Munsiff has held : 1. That the property mentioned in sale certificate Ex.1 dated 24-2-1965 which was issued in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and the property mentioned in the sale certificate dated 22-8-1969 (Ex.A/3) which was issued in favour of the respondent-defendant No. 1, is the same. 2. That when the objections were filed by the respondent-defendant No. 1 before the Competent Officer, at that time, though auction proceedings were taken place, but auction was not finalised, and that is why, through Ex.A/2 dated 17-8-1961, further proceedings of the auction were stayed. 3. That through Ex.A/1, which is a judgment dated 14-9-1962, the valuation of the whole of the property was got ascertained as Rs. 2100/- and the respondent-defendant No. 1 was allowed to pay half of the amount for the share of Kalu, who had gone to Pakistan. 4. That thereafter, respondent-defendant No. 1 deposited the whole amount and sale certificate Ex.A/3 dated 22-8-1969 was issued in favour of the defendant No. 1-respondent for the whole of property. 5. That Competent Officer passed the stay order on 17-8-1961 (Ex.A/2) in favour of the respondent-defendant No. 1 and in consequences thereof, sale certificate Ex.A/3 dated 22-8-1969 was issued in favour of the respondent-defendant No. 1. 6. That from the evidence oral as well as documentary led by both the parties and from the file of the Custodian Department, it appears that the property mentioned in Ex.A/3 sale certificate dated 22-8-1969 which is in favour of respondent-defendant No. 1 and the property mentioned in the sale certificate dated 24-2-1965 (Ex.1) which is in favour of the plaintiff appellant, is the same and this property was purchased by the plaintiff-appellant through auction, but thereafter, the proceedings of auction were stayed by the Competent Officer vide his order dated 17-8-1961 (Ex.A/2). The Managing Officer issued the sale certificate dated 24-2-1965 (Ex. 1) in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, though there was a stay and therefore, he should not have issued such sale certificate. 7. That the sale certificate Ex. 1 dated 24-2-1965 issued in favour of the plaintiff-appellant stands cancelled, in view of the sale certificate Ex./3 dated 22-8-1969 issued by the Competent Officer in favour of the defendant No. 1-respondent. 1) in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, though there was a stay and therefore, he should not have issued such sale certificate. 7. That the sale certificate Ex. 1 dated 24-2-1965 issued in favour of the plaintiff-appellant stands cancelled, in view of the sale certificate Ex./3 dated 22-8-1969 issued by the Competent Officer in favour of the defendant No. 1-respondent. Thus, the learned Munsiff decided the issue No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1-respondent and against the plaintiff appellant.On issue No. 6, the learned Munsiff, after discussing the evidence oral as well as documentary led by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove his possession over the disputed property and only on the basis of sale certificate Ex. 1 dated 24-2-1965, possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the disputed property cannot be taken for granted. He has further held that sale certificate Ex.1 dated 24-2-1965 would not be helpful to the plaintiff appellant since it stands cancelled in view of the sale certificate Ex.A/3 dated 22-8-1969 issued by the competent Officer in favour of the respondent-defendant No. 1 and thus, plaintiff appellant was not found in possession of the disputed property.Hence, the learned Munsiff, Sojat vide his judgment and decree dated 15-2-1978 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 15-2-1978 passed by the learned Munsiff, Sojat the plaintiff-appellant preferred first appeal before the learned District Judge, Pali, which was transferred to the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sojat and the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sojat vide his judgment and decree dated 28-7-1982 dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant and upheld the judgment and decree dated 15-2-1978 passed by the learned Munsiff, Sojat.Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 28-7-1982 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sojat, the plaintiff appellant has preferred this second appeal in this Court. 3. This Court while admitting this second appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law on 1-8-1984 : "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Civil Judge was not correct in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant in view of the finding recorded on issue No. 1, namely, that the plot in question was sold to the plaintiff by the Custodian Department. 2. Whether on the basis of Exs. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Civil Judge was not correct in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant in view of the finding recorded on issue No. 1, namely, that the plot in question was sold to the plaintiff by the Custodian Department. 2. Whether on the basis of Exs. Al to A3 the suit of the plaintiff could be dismissed when the finding on issue No. 1 is in favour of the plaintiff-appellant." Note:- During the pendency of the second appeal, the defendant No. 1-respondent Jahoor Ahmed died on 3-12-1991 and thereafter, his LRs were taken on record. 4. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has argued the following points in this second appeal : 1. That since issue No. 1 was decided by both the courts below in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, both the courts below have committed serious error of law in deciding issue No. 2 in favour of the respondent-defendant No. 1. 2. That both the Courts below have wrongly placed reliance on Exs. All to A/3. 3. That both the courts below have wrongly held that the plaintiff-appellant was not in possession of the property in dispute. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent supported the judgments and decrees of both the courts below. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Courts below. 7. There is no dispute on the point that issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant holding that sale certificate Ex.1 dated 24-2-1965 was issued in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. 8. From perusing the plaint itself, it appears that the plaintiff-appellant has come with the plea that the property in dispute belongs to one Kalu, who had gone to Pakistan and, therefore, it was evacuee property and it was rightly purchased by him through auction. On the contrary, the case of the defendant No. 1-respondent is that half of the property was of Kalu and half of the property was of defendant No. 1-respondent deceased Jahoor Ahmed. From the judgment Ex.A/1 dated 14-9-1962 passed by the State Competent Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur on the claim made by defendant No. 1-respondent, deceased Jahoor Ahmed, it becomes clear that half of the property was of Kalu and half of the property was found to be of defendant No. 1-respondent deceased Jahoor Ahmed. From the judgment Ex.A/1 dated 14-9-1962 passed by the State Competent Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur on the claim made by defendant No. 1-respondent, deceased Jahoor Ahmed, it becomes clear that half of the property was of Kalu and half of the property was found to be of defendant No. 1-respondent deceased Jahoor Ahmed. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff-appellant that whole of the property belongs to Kalu cannot be accepted, in view of the judgment Ex.A/1 dated 14-9-1962 passed by the Competent Officer. From this point of view also, defendant No. 1-respondent, deceased Jahoor Ahmed cannot be said to be stranger so far as the disputed property is concerned. 9. From the order dated 17-8-1961 (Ex.A/2), it is further clear that the auction proceedings of the evacuee property belonging to one Kalu were stayed by the Competent Officer. When there was a stay in force, if the sale certificate Ex.1 dated 24-2-1965 is issued in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, it would get no legal force or it can be said that it was issued in violation of the stay order dated 17-8-1961 (Ex.A/2) passed by the Competent Officer. The matter does not end here. The defendant No. 1-respondent deceased Jahoor Ahmed got a sale certificate in his favour Ex.A/3 dated 22-8-1969 from the Competent Officer and thus, he became the owner of the whole of the property belonging to himself and Kalu. 10. In my opinion, Ex.A/3 sale certificate which was issued on 22-8-1969 in favour of the defendant No. 1-respondent would certainly supersede the sale certificate Ex.1 dated 24-2-1965 which was issued in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and both the courts below have rightly placed reliance on Ex.A/1 to A/3 and rightly held that in view of sale certificate dated 22-8-1969 (Ex.A/3) issued in favour of the respondent-defendant No. 1, the sale certificate dated 24-2-1965 (Ex.1) issued in favour of the plaintiff appellant has no force. The findings recorded by both the courts below on is sue No. 2 are not based on no evidence or in disregard of evidence or not on inadmissible evidence or against the basic principles of law, but are based on correct and proper appreciation of evidence and on the face of it there appears no error of law or procedure and, therefore, they should not be disturbed in this second appeal. 11. 11. So far as the findings of the Courts below on the point of possession are concerned, it may be stated here that both the Courts below have clearly held that the plaintiff-appellant was not found in possession of the disputed property. The learned Munsiff while deciding issue No. 6 has stated that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove his possession over the disputed property by his evidence and furthermore, the plaintiff has admitted in his statement that over the possession of disputed property, there was a dispute and the possession was taken over the Panchayat. This fact also goes to show that the plaintiff-appellant was not in possession of the disputed property. There is one more aspect which goes against the plaintiff-appellant and the same is that when half of the property is found belonging to deceased Jahoor Ahmed, respondent-defendant No. 1, it means deceased Jahoor Ahmed, respondent-defendant No. 1 was in possession. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff-appellant that he was in possession right from the beginning is not tenable from this point of view also. Thus, the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below with regard to possession should not be disturbed in second appeal, as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary. 12. Since the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was for permanent injunction on the basis of possession and not for setting aside the sale certificate Ex.A/3 dated 22-8-1969 issued in favour of the respondent-defendant No. 1, in such circumstances, when there is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the plaintiff appellant is not in possession of the disputed property, plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. In sale certificate Ex. 1 dated 14-2-1965, no where it is mentioned that possession of the land in dispute has been given to the plaintiff appellant. If for the sake of argument it is held that plaintiff-appellant has a title over the land in dispute because of sale certificate Ex.1, all the I same, in absence of possession, he is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and therefore, his simple suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. If for the sake of argument it is held that plaintiff-appellant has a title over the land in dispute because of sale certificate Ex.1, all the I same, in absence of possession, he is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and therefore, his simple suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. In this regard, reference may be made to the decisions in Hira v. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, 1966 Raj LW 637 , Terene Traders v. Rameshchandra Jamnadas and Co., AIR 1987 SC 1492 and Chintapatla Arvind Babu v. Smt. K. Balakistamma alias Bhargavi, AIR 1992 Andh Pra 300. 13. In view of the above, the substantial questions framed by this Court on 1-8-1984 are decided in the following manner : 1. That the learned Additional Civil Judge was right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant despite the finding on issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant that the plot in question was sold to the plaintiff-appellant by the Custodian Department. 2. That though there is a finding in favour of the plaintiff-appellant on issue No. 1, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant could be dismissed by placing reliance on Exs.A/1 to A/3. Thus, for the reasons stated above, this second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant fails and is dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree dated 28-7-1982 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sojat. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******