JUDGMENT Kiran Anand Lall, J. - Having lost in both the courts below in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff has come up in regular second appeal to this Court. 2. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that originally, his grand-father, Jeona, was owner in possession of the disputed site. On Jeonas death, his estate devolved upon his two sons, Norata Ram and Modan. Modan died about 63 years prior to the filing of this suit, without leaving any issue or wife. His estate including the disputed site devolved upon his brother Norata Ram. Norata Ram also died about 12-13 years prior to the filing of the suit and, thereupon, his son, the appellant, became the owner of the disputed site. The appellant claimed to have become owner of the disputed site by adverse possession also. He wanted to raise construction on the site but the respondents did not allow him to do so. Instead, the respondents threatened to dispossess him therefrom. Thereupon, he filed a suit, claiming permanent injunction against the respondents, restraining them from interfering with his possession over the site. 3. The respondents contested the suit by denying all the averments made in the plaint. According to them, the site is, in fact, owned and possessed by Baldev Singh and Randhir Singh respondents. It was also pleaded that an earlier suit filed by the appellant regarding this very site was dismissed by the trial Court but in appeal it was allowed to be withdrawn, with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action subject to payment of Rs. 50/- as costs. The appellant, however, filed this suit without depositing the amount of costs. As such, the suit filed by him was stated to be not maintainable also. 4. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant had no connection with the disputed site nor he was in its possession. It was further held that the suit was not maintainable also, due to non-payment of costs imposed on him in the earlier suit. The first Appellate Court also decided against him, while maintaining the findings of the trial Court. 5. The evidence available on record shows that appellants claim about ownership of the disputed site was mainly based on the allotment order. Ex. PW3/A, and the site plan, Ex. The first Appellate Court also decided against him, while maintaining the findings of the trial Court. 5. The evidence available on record shows that appellants claim about ownership of the disputed site was mainly based on the allotment order. Ex. PW3/A, and the site plan, Ex. PW3/B. But, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents, there is no evidence to indicate that the allotment order, Ex. PW3/A, pertains to the allotment of this site. Similarly, site plan, Ex. PW3/B, is also of no help to the appellant. It relates to various properties allotted to various persons. But, there is no evidence to connect the disputed site with any of the properties shown in it. 6. Besides, an earlier suit filed by the appellant in respect of this very property was allowed to be withdrawn by the Court with permission to file a fresh one subject to payment of costs. It is not disputed that the appellant had not deposited the amount of costs. The present suit was, therefore, even otherwise, not maintainable. 7. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact about the appellant being neither owner nor in possession of the disputed site. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any question of law involved in this appeal, calling for determination by this Court. As such, no interference in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts against the appellant about the ownership and also possession of the disputed suit, is called for. The appeal shall, accordingly, stand dismissed. Appeal dismissed.