ORDER : Ashok Bhan, J. Anandakumar and Saratha, plaintiff-respondents filed OS No. 528 of 1986 in the Court of the District Munsif at Bhavani against Subramanian and Rasa Gounder, the appellants herein, seeking declaration of their title and possession. According to them, their predecessor-in-interest had purchased the property vide sale deeds dated 12-2-1953 and 19-3-1953. On a partition effected on 17-3-1970, property fell to the share of Respondents 1 and 2 herein. It is stated that Respondents 1 and 2 were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property through their relative, namely, R.S. Gnanasubramaniam. The appellants were put in permissive possession by Respondent 1 in the year 1984. Later on the appellants started claiming ownership of the property. Aggrieved against the claim made by the appellants, the present suit was filed for declaration and possession. 2. The appellants herein also filed Suit No. 280 of 1989 in the Court of the District Munsif, Bhavani seeking an injunction restraining Respondents 1 and 2 from dispossessing them except in accordance with law. 3. Both the suits (OSS Nos. 528 of 1986 and 280 of 1989) were clubbed together and were disposed of by the trial court by passing a common judgment. OS No. 528 of 1986 filed by Respondents 1 and 2 was dismissed, while OS No. 280 of 1989 filed by the appellants seeking injunction, restraining Respondents 1 and 2 from interfering with the possession of the appellants was decreed. Aggrieved against the same, the respondents filed appeal suits being ASS Nos. 52 and 53 of 1997 before the Subordinate Judge, Erode and the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court in OSS Nos. 528 of 1986 and 280 of 1989 were set aside by the first appellate court. OS No. 528 of 1986 filed by Respondents 1 and 2 for declaration of their title and possession was decreed while OS No. 280 of 1989 filed by the appellants seeking injunction restraining Respondents 1 and 2 from interfering with their possession was dismissed. It was held that in view of the decree passed for possession in favour of the respondents, the suit filed by the appellants for injunction has become infructuous and was dismissed accordingly. 4. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the appellants filed Second Appeals Nos. 234 and 235 of 1998 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. 4. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the appellants filed Second Appeals Nos. 234 and 235 of 1998 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Both the appeals were taken up together by the High Court and disposed of them by passing a common order. The High Court, on reappraisal of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the first appellate court in both the suits were findings of fact which did not call for interference in the second appeals. It was observed that no question of law, much less, a substantial question of law had arisen for consideration in the second appeals. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the judgments of the High Court and that of the courts below, we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in holding that the findings recorded by the first appellate court were findings of fact which did not call for interference in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code. We find no infirmity in the order impugned before us. 6. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.