Judgment :- This second appeal has been brought forth by the plaintiffs, who originally filed a suit before the District Munsif, Kotagiri, for rectification of an assignment deed, and on dismissal of the same, they preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Judge at Ooty in A.S.No.34 of 2004, which also met the same fate of dismissal. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. The Court is of the considered opinion that on hearing the submissions made and scrutiny of the materials available, no case is made out even for admission of this second appeal before this Court. 3. The gist of the case of the plaintiffs when they brought a suit before the trial Court, was that originally, there was an assignment in respect of 2 cents of land with specific boundaries under Survey No.1296/1B at Kotagiri on 13.9.1971 by the first respondent Collectorate in favour of their father one Mookan; that their father took possession of the same, and he was in enjoyment of the assigned land till 25.4.1977; that thereafter, the plaintiffs who are his sons, have been in enjoyment of the same; that subsequently, when a suit was filed by one of the plaintiffs against the other in O.S.No.309/95, an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was taken out in I.A.No.263/96; that the plaintiffs came to know that the boundaries were wrongly given in the deed; that on coming to know about the same, an application for rectification has also been made to the concerned authority; but, no action has been taken, and thus, they brought forth the suit for rectification of the original assignment deed. 4. 4. The suit was resisted by the defendants stating that it is true that originally, there was an assignment in respect of Survey No.1296/1, which was subsequently subdivided into Survey No.1296/1B; that it was given to the late Mookan under Harijan House Site Scheme; that subsequently, a house was constructed, which was a thatched one; that thereafter, a pucca construction was made; that now, it came to light that the said construction was not in the property which was assigned, but in some other property; that apart from that, the original assignment deed consisted of four boundaries, which were mentioned in the written statement; but, they are found to be contrary to one what is now sought to be rectified; that it is nothing but an attempt to enlarge the property by way of rectification; that the assignment of patta was given to 139 persons under the said scheme; that if any rectification is made, then it would cause prejudice to all the persons concerned, and under the circumstances, the suit was to be dismissed. 5. Necessary issues were framed by the trial Court, and on trial, the suit was dismissed. Then, the plaintiffs took it on appeal, which was also dismissed. Now, this second appeal has been brought forth. 6. After perusal of the materials available and hearing the submissions, the Court is of the considered opinion that the suit itself was a vexatious one. It is not in dispute that originally, two cents of land was given to the plaintiffs' father one Mookan in Survey No.1296 under the Harijan House Site Scheme. Subsequently, it was subdivided into one of 1296/1B of Kotagiri. It is pertinent to point out that originally, it consisted of certain boundaries from 1971 to 1977. Till the life time of the father, the original assignee, there was no murmur; but, on his death, it has been in their enjoyment for a long time, according to the plaintiffs. It is also pertinent to note that one of the plaintiffs filed a suit against the other plaintiffs, who are his brothers, and a relief of appointment of a Commissioner was also sought for. At that juncture, the plaintiffs came to know that the boundaries given were not correct, and they were to be rectified. Under the circumstance, the instant suit has been filed. At that juncture, the plaintiffs came to know that the boundaries given were not correct, and they were to be rectified. Under the circumstance, the instant suit has been filed. It is an admitted position that 139 persons have been given assignments under the said scheme, which are all adjacent to each other, namely 2 cents per head. If the relief of rectification is granted, as rightly pointed out by the learned appellate Judge, it would naturally cause prejudice to and be detrimental to the interest of 139 persons. Apart from that, this Court is able to see that the relief of rectification was nothing but a camouflage in order to get the original land namely 2 cents, enlarged. Both the Courts below have also pointed out that originally, two cents of land was given, and construction was made in a different property, and all would go to show that it was not the intention of the plaintiffs to seek rectification, but to seek enlargement of the original property. Under the circumstances, both the Courts on marshalling the evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding, which, in the opinion of the Court, should not be disturbed. Apart from that, this Court is unable to see any question of law, much less substantial question of law to be formulated by this Court for consideration. Hence, this second appeal does not carry any merit whatsoever, and the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed.