Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the Judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 30.09.2000 and appellate Judgment and decree dated 21.07.2001 by which the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs seeking injunction and appellate Court dismissed the appeal 3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs on behalf of the temple filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Board, Jaisalmer. According to plaintiffs the temple in question is old temple and the defendant threatened to construct a road by covering some of the land of the temple. The plaintiffs claimed their possessory title. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide Judgment and decree dated 30.09.2000 after holding that there is old temple, but so far as alleged wall is concerned, that appears to have been constructed to encroach the land of the respondent Municipal Board and it is admitted case as PW. 1 Loona Ram admitted that the disputed land was originally revenue land of the State Government and it was transferred to the Municipal Board, Jaisalmer. The trial Court found that a scheme was prepared for the entire area and the Municipal Board produced allotment letter for the land in question as Exhibits A/2 and A/14 show that they have right to develop the area and for that purpose they are constructing a road. The first appellate Court also observed that the plaintiffs to obstruct this plan and to show their possession have put some loose stones and constructed a wall from the stones, but not with any binding materials. 4. According to learned Counsel for the appellant since both the Courts found the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute, therefore, even the true owner cannot dispossess the person in possession is the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court and, therefore, the Courts below committed illegality in not decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for injunction. 5. I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant. 5. I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant. The finding of fact is that the plaintiffs to encroach upon the land put some stones and put stone barrier (Kachi Wall) only over the land and such possession cannot be treated to be a settled possession and particularly, in view of the fact that land is not of any private individual but is belonging to the Municipal Board, who cannot protect its land by making boundary walls for all their land. A stray act of trespass cannot be acquitted with settled possession. Looking to the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below, I do not find any substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal. 6. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.