JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is the appellant. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction relating to the suit property. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property, which originally belonged to late Manickam, who is the husband of the Ist plaintiff and father of minor plaintiffs 2 to 5. The said Manickam died on 5.5.1987 and the plaintiffs have succeeded to the properties as the legal heirs. The body of Manickam after his demise was also buried only in the suit thope. When Manickam was alive, the defendant entered into an agreement to cut and pluck the coconuts alone from the coconut trees and apart from that, he has no other right. The defendant entered into an agreement on 26.4.1984 with the said Manickam for a period of three years and accordingly, he cut and plucked the coconuts from the trees for three years and surrendered the right of plucking the coconuts in the trees with Manickam. The other works relating to the coconut trees in the properties were done only by the said Manickam and thereafter by the plaintiffs. After the demise of Manickam, the defendant again approached to get right to pluck the coconuts and the plaintiffs did not yield and now the defendant is attempting to interfere in the possession and hence the suit. The defendant contended that the suit property is only a river poramboke enjoyed by the said Manickam. But the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of the deceased Manickam since the first plaintiff was only the second wife of the deceased. He also denied that the only right to cut and pluck the coconuts was given for a period of three years. The alleged surrender pleaded by the plaintiffs is also not correct. There was already prior proceeding between Manickam and Chettichi Ammal in O.S. No.641 of 1979 and the said Manickam received a sum of Rs.20,000 and transferred the right of possession to the defendant on 23.4.1985. Ever since the date, the defendant alone is in possession and enjoyment of the property and the plaintiffs have no right. The plaintiffs were not in possession of the property on the date of suit also and as such, they are not entitled to claim any relief. Ever since the date, the defendant alone is in possession and enjoyment of the property and the plaintiffs have no right. The plaintiffs were not in possession of the property on the date of suit also and as such, they are not entitled to claim any relief. The plaintiffs filed a reply statement denying the averments made in the written statement. The trial Court framed 4 issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked and on the side of the defendant D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-9 were marked. The trial Court decreed the suit and aggrieved against this, the defendant preferred A.S. No.136 of 1988 on the file of Sub Court, Trichy and the learned Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal and aggrieved against this, the defendant has come forward with the present second appeal. 3. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (1) When the first plaintiff has in a statement before the Revenue Inspector admitted to the effect that the defendant has taken possession, will there be an injunction in favour of the plaintiff? (2) When the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant was inducted into possession under Ex.A-2 has been disbelieved by the Courts below, is there a warrant to accept the plea of surrender as put forth by the plaintiffs? (3) Was the lower appellate Court wrong in not admitting the additional evidence sought for by the defendant? 4. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 5. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction relating to the suit property measuring an extent of 0.58 cents out of 6.81 acres in survey No.279 river poramboke with 100 coconut trees. It is admitted by the parties that the suit property is in river poramboke and was in enjoyment of Manickam, the husband of the Ist plaintiff and the father of plaintiffs 2 to 5. The said Manickam died on 5.5.1987 and after him, the plaintiffs claimed that they have succeeded to the properties as the legal heirs. It is admitted by the parties that the suit property is in river poramboke and was in enjoyment of Manickam, the husband of the Ist plaintiff and the father of plaintiffs 2 to 5. The said Manickam died on 5.5.1987 and after him, the plaintiffs claimed that they have succeeded to the properties as the legal heirs. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the right to cut and pluck the coconuts from the trees alone was given to the defendant for a period of three years on 26.1.1984 and after the expiry of the period, the defendant surrendered the said right to the said Manickam. However, the other works relating to the coconut trees were done only by Manickam and after his demise by the plaintiffs. 6.Per contra, the appellant/ defendant questioned the legal status of the plaintiffs and contended that the first plaintiff was only the second wife of the deceased and they have no right to claim any right in the properties. Apart from that, on 23.4.1985 the defendant paid a sum of Rs.20,000 to Manickam and the right of possession of the property was given to him under an unregistered document. There was already proceedings between Manickam and Chettichi Ammal in O.S. No.641 of 1979 and for payment of some dues, Manickam had obtained money from the defendant. In short, the defendant claims that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property from 23.4.1985 and as the plaintiffs were not in possession of the property, they are not entitled to claim any right. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant contended that the Courts below failed to see that the plaintiffs have not discharged the burden of proof regarding the surrender of possession of the property. The lower appellate Court should have allowed the documents filed by the appellant at the time of first appeal as additional evidence. The first plaintiff had given a statement before the Revenue Inspector, namely R.W.1 that the appellant/ defendant alone is in possession and, as such, she is estopped from claiming that she is in possession of the suit property. 8. It is necessary to state that the document dated 23.4.1985 is an unregistered document. No doubt, this document was filed by the appellant before the Courts below, but it was not received as evidence on the ground of want of registration. 8. It is necessary to state that the document dated 23.4.1985 is an unregistered document. No doubt, this document was filed by the appellant before the Courts below, but it was not received as evidence on the ground of want of registration. It is settled position of law, for transfer of interest in an immovable property, it can be done only under a registered document. Now, the appellant wants to claim that he is in possession of the property based upon the document dated 23.4.1985. Similarly, the statement said to have been given by the first plaintiff before the Revenue Inspector also cannot have any value before the Civil Court. The Revenue Inspector was not the authority empowered to record any statement from a person relating to the enquiry and, as such, the statement recorded cannot be given much credence. When once it is admitted by the appellant that the land was in possession and enjoyment of the said Manickam, the plaintiffs having established that they are the legal heirs of deceased Manickam are entitled to have the same right in the properties. Now, the plaintiffs have come forward with a specific case that what was given to the appellant was only a limited right to pluck and cut the coconuts from the coconut trees. Apart from that, nothing was given to the appellant/ defendant On the other hand, other works have been carried out only by the said Manickam and after his demise by the plaintiffs. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs relied on the decision in Madhavan v. Kannammal, (1990)2 L.W. 274, that plaintiff cannot abandon his own case and claim relief on the basis of defendant’s case. Principle not applicable where plaintiff does not seek relief on the basis of pleading of the defendant, but only on the facts established on the record, though they are at variance with his own pleading. 10. Reliance is also placed on Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor, (1999)2 S.C.C. 471 , that under Sec.100, C.P.C. that whether a finding of fact is against the weight of evidence, held, does not project a question of law, much less a substantial question of law. 11. 10. Reliance is also placed on Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor, (1999)2 S.C.C. 471 , that under Sec.100, C.P.C. that whether a finding of fact is against the weight of evidence, held, does not project a question of law, much less a substantial question of law. 11. It has been held in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others, (1999)3 S.C.C. 722 , that a concurrent finding of fact, however erroneous, cannot be disturbed under Sec.100 C.P.C. It has also been held in Thimmaiah and others v. Ningamma and another, (2000)7 S.C.C. 409 , that under Sec.100, C.P.C. where there is some evidence for the findings, but the appreciation of the evidence is erroneous, held, a second appeal will not lie. It has also been held in Mohan Lal v. Nihal Singh, (2001)8 S.C.C. 584 , that the lower appellate Court, which is the final Court of fact, confirmed the finding of the trial Court regarding the plaintiff’s possession over the suit land and upheld the judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit. Under such circumstances, there was hardly any scope for the High Court to interfere with the finding of possession concurrently recorded by the Courts below within the limited parameters of Sec.100, C.P.C. This decision is applicable to the case on hand in all fours. 12. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs alone are in possession and enjoyment of the properties. The appellant/ defendant had failed to establish that he continued to be in possession of the properties. Moreover, what was given to the appellant was only a licence and it has come to an end by efflux of time. Hence, the burden is on the appellant to prove that even thereafter he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property, but it has not been proved. In view of the concurrent finding of the Courts below based on legal evidence and as there is no erroneous approach, no interference is called for. 13. For the reasons stated above, the second appeal fails and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.