ORDER :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 8-8-2006 passed by the lower appellate Court whereby the defendants first appeal has been dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the appellants-defendants from interfering into his possession over the disputed plot. 3. The suit is that out of the total are of plot No. 1132, an area of 0.161 hectare was allotted to the respondent-plaintiff by Gaon Sabha in the year 1992 over which he came in possession and had kept his Marha or Jhopari etc. and had constructed boundary wall. He is thus, continuing in possession thereon since its allotment, but since the defendants were also allotted a portion of the aforesaid plot No. 1132 by the Gaon Sabha, now they have started interference in the plaintiffs possession. They also tried to completely dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed property but on the intervention made by the villagers it could not be done. Later on again they have developed some ill design giving rise to the filing of the suit. The suit was contested by the defendants-appellants stating that the plaintiff had given incorrect boundaries of the plot and he had absolutely no possession over the same. He had no Marha or Jhopari over it. The land in dispute is the property over which the defendants have obtained allotment orders from the Gaon Sabha. The plaintiff had no concern over plot No. 1132 and the suit had absolutely no basis. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings, the Court below framed several issues and gave its findings thereon. From the evidence recorded and other materials available on record, the trial Court found that the property in dispute of which the boundaries are given, was duly proved on record and the oral evidence of the same also found corroboration by the Commissioners report over which there was no objection from the side of the defendant. The trial Court has also found the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff as valid and on that basis decision was arrived at that the defendants who subsequently came in possession over another piece of land of plot No. 1132 have absolutely no right to interfere into the plaintiffs possession over the suit land. The trial Court has also found the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff as valid and on that basis decision was arrived at that the defendants who subsequently came in possession over another piece of land of plot No. 1132 have absolutely no right to interfere into the plaintiffs possession over the suit land. Accordingly the suit for permanent injunction was decreed and the appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court and has affirmed the decree granted in plaintiffs favour. The appeal has been dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants while making his submissions before the Court has tried to convince that a substantial question of law is available here in the appeal and the suit of permanent injunction was not the proper course to have plaintiffs grievances duly redressed. The suit should have been that for the relief of partition because the plot No. 1132 has been bifurcated in several sub-plots by the Gaon Sabha by allotting different portions of it to different villagers. No boundary of the specific portion allotted to a particular individual was described either in the allotment order or in the memo of delivery of possession. In that view of the matter no specific boundary of a particular portion allotted to one individual would be ascertainable and that is why the suit for partition of land was alone competent. A suit for the relief of permanent injunction was incompetent. 6. I do not agree with the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel because way back in the year 1992 the allotment in plaintiffs favour took place and delivery of possession of that portion of plot No. 1132 was given to him on 20-9-1992. Obviously after taking possession of that portion of the land certain boundary must have been carved out for proper identification of the land by the landholder himself and it is that boundary itself which has been described in the plaint by him. Whether or not such boundary as given in the pleadings is correct, was to be found out by the Courts below while appreciating the evidence and other materials available on the record. Whether or not such boundary as given in the pleadings is correct, was to be found out by the Courts below while appreciating the evidence and other materials available on the record. Both the Courts by recording similar findings of fact have found that the boundaries as have been shown in the plaint are correct and it is within those boundaries that the plaintiff has been found in possession of this portion of plot No. 1132. The Commissioners report has also been relied upon in this context which confirms the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land within that boundary. All these findings recorded by the Courts below are factual findings and this Court in second appeal is not supposed to interfere in the same at all. Since a portion of plot No. 1132 was undisputedly allotted to the plaintiff over which he has been found in possession, the defendants have absolutely no right to disturb that possession in one or the other manner. It is in this view of the matter that the Courts below have decreed the plaintiff-respondents suit. In such a fact situation if the plaintiff filed the suit of permanent injunction, it cannot be held that the suit was incompetent because the suit for partition of land could be filed. The substantial question of law as suggested by the learned counsel is wholly uncalled for and it is not requiring a decision in this appeal. In fact there is absolutely no subsequent question of law which could be said to be available in this appeal as to occasion an admission of the same. 7. The appeal is without merits and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.